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.1 D e c e m be r 18, 2008

E nvi r onm e nt a l P r ot e c t i on A ge nc y

W a t e r D oc ke t

M a i l c ode 2822T

1200 P e nns yl va ni a A ve nue

W a s hi ngt on, D C 20460

R e : D oc k e t n u m b e r E P A

- H Q

- O W

- 2008

- 0390

C om m e n t s b y t h e C C S R e g P r oj e c t o n p r op os e d E P A r u l e : F e d e r al R e q u i r e m e n t s U n d e r

t h e U n d e r gr ou n d I n j e c t i on C on t r ol ( U I C ) P r og r am f or C ar b on D i oxi d e ( C O 2 ) G e ol ogi c

S e q u e s t r at i on ( G S ) We l l s ( 73 F R 43491

- 43541, Ju l y 25 2008 )

I n t r od u c t i on

1. T he s e c om m e nt s a r e s ubm i t t e d on be ha l f of t he C C S R e g P r oj e c t

, a t w o

- ye a r r e s e a r c h

e f

f

or t w i t h t he ob j e c t i ve s of : de s i gni ng a nd f a c i l i t a t i ng t he r a pi d a dopt i on o f a U

. S

.

r e gul a t or y e nvi r onm e nt f o r t he c a pt ur e

, t r a ns por t a nd de e p ge ol ogi c a l s e que s t r a t i on ( G S ) o f c a r bon di oxi de ( C O 2 ) ; a nd

, e ns ur i ng t ha t c a rbon c a pt ur e a nd s e que s t r a t i on

( C C S ) w i l l be done i n a m a nne r t ha t i s s a f e

, e nvi r o nm e nt a l l y s ound, a f f

or da bl e

,

c om pa t i bl e w i t h e vol vi ng i nt e r na t i ona l c a rbon

- c on t r ol r e gi m e s ( i nc l udi ng e m i s s i ons

t r a di ng) a nd s oc i a l l y e qui t a bl e

.

2. T he C C S R e g P r oj e c t i s a nc hor e d i n t he D e pa r t m e nt of E ngi ne e r i ng a nd P ubl i c P ol i c y

a t C a r ne gi e M e l l on U ni ve r s i t y. O t he r m e m be r s o f t he pr oj e c t t e a m a r e l oc a t e d a t t he

H ube r t H

. H um phr e y I ns t i t ut e of P ubl i c A f f

a i r s a t t he U ni ve r s i t y of M i nne s ot a

, t he

I ns t i t ut e f or E ne r gy a nd t he E nvi r onm e nt a t t he V e r m ont L a w S c hool

, a nd t he

W a s hi ngt on, D C l a w f i r m o f V a n N e s s F e l dm a n

. Q ue s t i ons r e ga r di ng t he s e

c om m e nt s s houl d be di r e c t e d t o pr oj e c t m a na ge r D r

. S e a n M c C oy a t 412

- 268

- 5489

.

3. P r i m a r y f undi ng f or t he C C S R e g P r oj e c t c om e s f r om t he D or i s D uke C ha r i t a bl e

F ounda t i on. M or e i nf or m a t i on a bout t he C C S R e g P r oj e c t c a n be f ound a t

ht t p: / / w w w

. c c s r e g. or g/ i nde x. ht m l

.

4. T he C C S R e g P r oj e c t ha s pr oduc e d a n i n t e r i m r e p or t f r a m i ng t he i s s ue s w e be l i e ve

m us t be c ons i de r e d i f C C S i s t o be s a f e l y a nd e f f

e c t i ve l y de ve l ope d. T hi s r e por t

( dr a f t ve r s i on a t t a c he d) l a ys ou t opt i ons f o r l e ga l a nd r e gul a t or y a ppr oa c he s f or C C S

. O ve r t he ne xt 12 m ont hs

, t he C C S R e g P r oj e c t w i l l c om pl e t e a nd publ i s h a f i na l

r e por t t ha t w i l l i nc l ude s pe c i f i c r e c om m e nda t i ons a nd s ugge s t i ons f or pos s i bl e ne w

l e gi s l a t i ve a ut hor i t y.

5. C ont r i but or s t o t he C C S R e g P r oj e c t

, a nd t o t he s e c om m e nt s

, a r e l i s t e d i n t he a t t a c he d

r e por t

. O pi ni ons e xpr e s s e d i n t he r e por t

, a nd i n t he s e c om m e nt s

, a r e t hos e of t he

i ndi vi dua l c ont r i but o r s a nd m a y no t r e p r e s e nt t he v i e w s of t he i ns t i t ut i ons w i t h w hi c h

t he y a r e a f f i l i a t e d.2 O ve r ar c h i n g i s s u e s an d c on c e r n s

6. W e a ppl a ud E P A ’ s w o r k t ow a r d de ve l opi ng r e gul a t i ons f or G S

. I t i s ur ge nt t ha t t he

U

. S

. m ove s f or w a r d w i t h de pl oy m e nt of C C S t e c h nol ogi e s : E P A ’ s e f f

or t t o w r i t e

r ul e s f or G S w e l l s i nc or po r a t i ng s ound s c i e nt i f i c a nd t e c hni c a l know l e dge c ont r i but e s

t o c r e a t i ng a r e gul a t or y f r a m e w or k t ha t e ns ur e s t ha t G S w i l l be done i n a m a nne r t ha t

i s s a f e a nd e nvi r onm e nt a l l y s ound. T he s pe e d w i t h w hi c h E P A dr a f t e d t he s e r ul e s

,

a nd t he i nc l us i ve ne s s of t he r ul e w r i t i ng p r oc e s s

, a r e w e l l m a t c he d t o t he ur ge nc y a nd

br oa d i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ob l e m

.

7. E P A ’ s l a uda bl e e f f

or t s not w i t hs t a ndi ng, w e be l i e v e t he S a f e D r i nki ng W a t e r A c t

( S D W A ) doe s not pr ovi de a de qua t e a ut hor i t y t o c o m pr e he ns i ve l y r e gul a t e G S

. B e c a us e t he s t a t ut or y a ut hor i t y f o r t he U I C P r ogr a m de r i ve s f r o m t he S D W A

, t he

pr opos e d r ul e i s una bl e t o a ddr e s s ke y i s s ue s t ha t m us t be r e s ol ve d f or c om m e r c i a l

s c a l e G S

, 1 s uc h a s :

 ow ne r s hi p of por e s pa c e ( di s c us s e d i n C ha pt e r 5 of a t t a c he d r e por t ) ;

 pot e nt i a l hum a n he a l t h o r e c ol ogi c a l i m pa c t s i f c a r bon di oxi de l e a ks t o t he

s ur f a c e or ne a r

- s ur f a c e ( di s c us s e d i n C ha pt e r s 1, 4

, a nd 6 o f a t t a c he d r e po r t ) ;

 l ong

- t e r m l i a bi l i t y ( di s c us s e d i n C ha pt e r s 7 a nd 8 of a t t a c he d r e por t ) ; a nd,

 gr e e nhous e ga s r e gul a t or y a c c ount i ng, w hi c h w i l l be t he e na bl i ng l i nk t o

i nc e nt i ve s t r uc t ur e s t ha t m a ke G S e c onom i c a l l y vi a bl e ( di s c us s e d i n C ha pt e r s

8 a nd 9 o f a t t a c he d r e po r t )

.

8. F a i l ur e t o r e s ol ve t he a bove i s s ue s c oul d m a ke t he c om m e r c i a l de ve l opm e nt of C C S

i m pos s i bl e

.

9. T he pr opos e d r ul e s f or C l a s s V I G S w e l l s a r e m or e s t r i nge nt t ha n t he ot he r U I C w e l l

c l a s s e s ( 73 F R 43524

- 43525 ) ye t t he y do not c om p r e he ns i ve l y m a na ge i s s ue s of

c onc e r n f or G S

. W i t h t hi s l i m i t a t i on

, t he pr opos e d r ul e s r un t he r i s k of l oc ki ng i n a

r e gul a t or y f r a m e w or k t ha t ul t i m a t e l y i nhi bi t s w i de s pr e a d c om m e r c i a l de pl oym e nt of

C C S

.

O ve r ar c h i n g r e c om m e n d a t i on s

10. T he i na bi l i t y of t he pr opos e d r ul e t o m a na ge t he i s s ue s l i s t e d a bove s houl d be

r e m e di e d by e i t he r :

a

. pa s s a ge of ne w f e de r a l l e gi s l a t i on t o s uppl e m e nt t h e U I C pr ogr a m a nd a m e nd

t he S D W A ; or

b. pa s s a ge of ne w f r e e s t a ndi ng f e de r a l l e gi s l a t i on t o r e gul a t e G S

c om pr e he ns i ve l y.

T he s e opt i ons a r e de t a i l e d i n C ha pt e r 6 of t he a t t a c he d r e por t

.

1 T h es e l i mi t at i o n s ar e ack n o w l ed g ed b y t h e ag en cy i n t h e p re amb l e t o t h e ru l e

. (7 3 F R 4 3

, 4 9 5 )3 11. T o pr e ve nt c r e a t i on of a n ove r l y i nhi bi t i ve r e gul a t or y f r a m e w or k, t he U I C p r ogr a m

s houl d c ont i nue t o pe r m i t w e l l s i nj e c t i ng C O 2 und e r e xi s t i ng w e l l c l a s s e s a nd/ or t he

pr opos e d C l a s s V I r ul e s

, f o r a l i m i t e d a nd de f i ne d pe r i od. C onc ur r e nt l y

, a

C om m i s s i on or a n I nt e r a ge nc y T a s k F or c e ( e s t a bl i s he d e i t he r t hr ough l e gi s l a t i on or

e xe c ut i ve or de r of t he P r e s i de nt ) s houl d ga t he r a n d s ynt he s i z e r e s ul t s f r om pi l ot a nd

e a r l y c om m e r c i a l

- s c a l e pr oj e c t s

, p r ovi di ng r e c om m e nda t i ons t o C ongr e s s on t he

pr ope r f o r m a t t o r e gul a t e w i de s pr e a d c om m e r c i a l C C S

. C ha pt e r 11 o f t he a t t a c he d

r e por t de t a i l s t hi s t w o

- s t a ge a ppr oa c h.

12. A dopt i on of t he C l a s s V I r ul e s s houl d be a c c om pa ni e d by f undi ng a de qua t e t o

i m pl e m e nt t he m

. R e gul a t i on o f G S t hr ough t he U I C pr ogr a m c a nnot be e f f

e c t i ve

unl e s s f undi ng i s pr ovi de d c om m e ns ur a t e t o t he go a l s of t he C l a s s V I p r ogr a m

. T he

E P A U I C budge t

, i nc l udi ng gr a nt s t o s t a t e pr og r a m s

, i s c hr oni c a l l y unde r f unde d.

A nnua l f e de r a l a ppr op r i a t i ons t o t he U I C p r ogr a m ha ve be e n a ppr oxi m a t e l y $11

m i l l i on: l e s s t ha n ha l f t he f undi ng l e ve l ( $25 m i l l i o n pe r ye a r ) a ut hor i z e d i n t he

S D W A

. S t udi e s by t he G r ound W a t e r P r ot e c t i on C ounc i l s how t ha t t he C l a s s V

pr ogr a m w oul d ne e d a n a ddi t i ona l $50 m i l l i on a nn ua l l y t o m e e t i t s obj e c t i ve s a nd t ha t

t he C l a s s I I pr og r a m i s unde r

- f unde d by a ppr oxi m a t e l y $25 m i l l i on a nnua l l y. A n

unde r

- r e s our c e d r e gul a t or y a ge nc y c a nnot e ns ur e t he s a f e a nd e f f

e c t i ve ope r a t i on of

G S pr oj e c t s

.

I s s u e s t h at w ou l d r e q u i r e m e n t am e n d m e n t of t h e S WD A or p as s age of n e w l e gi s l at i o n

13. N e e d t o bal anc e m ul t i pl e e nv i r onm e nt al i nt e r e s t s : P r ot e c t i on of dr i nki ng w a t e r i s a n

e s s e nt i a l e nvi r onm e nt a l goa l

, but m us t be ba l a nc e d w i t h a vo i da nc e of t he da nge r ous

i m pa c t s of c l i m a t e c ha nge

. A s m a nda t e d by t he S D W A

, t he U I C P r ogr a m r ul e s ha ve

be e n de ve l ope d w i t h t he obj e c t i ve of p r e ve nt i ng a n y m i gr a t i on of i nj e c t e d f l ui d or

ot he r c ont a m i na nt s i nt o U S D W s

. I n pr a c t i c e

, h ow e ve r

, r e gul a t or y t r e a t m e nt of

i nj e c t a t e m i gr a t i on ha s be e n l e s s c l e a r

- c ut

. F or e xa m pl e t he e xpe r i e nc e i n F l or i da

, di s c us s e d i n C ha pt e r 6 o f t he a t t a c he d r e por t

, s ugg e s t s t ha t i t w oul d be hi ghl y

de s i r a bl e t o ha ve a r r a nge m e nt s i n pl a c e a he a d of t i m e t o a l l ow ba l a nc i ng of

pot e nt i a l l y c onf l i c t i ng na t i ona l e nvi r onm e nt a l i nt e r e s t s

. W e r e c om m e nd t ha t t he

S D W A be a m e nde d t o a l l ow ba l a nc i ng m ul t i pl e e n vi r onm e nt a l i nt e r e s t s

.

14. O w ne r s hi p of P or e Spac e : C ons i de r a bl e a m bi gui t y e xi s t s t oda y i n t he U

. S

. a s t o t he

c ur r e nt ow ne r s hi p o f t he de e p p or e s pa c e t ha t w oul d hol d i nj e c t e d C O 2 , a nd how t he

r i ght t o us e de e p por e s pa c e w oul d be obt a i ne d f o r G S pur pos e s

. I t a ppe a r s t ha t m os t

i nj e c t or s of w a s t e f l ui ds i nt o ot he r w e l l c l a s s e s r e gul a t e d by t he U I C ha ve not s e c ur e d

r i ght s or pe r m i s s i on t o us e t he p or e s pa c e f r om a ny s ur f a c e or s ub

- s ur f a c e pr ope r t y

ow ne r s

. A t l e a s t a f e w o f t hos e i nj e c t i on pr oj e c t s l i ke l y i nvol ve vol um e s o f f l u i d a s

l a r ge or l a r ge r t ha n t he vol um e s o f C O 2 t ha t w i l l b e i nvol ve d i n c om m e r c i a l

- s c a l e

C C S pr oj e c t s

. I n or de r f o r C C S t o r e m a i n a n e c on om i c pos s i bi l i t y, ne w l e gi s l a t i on

m us t a l l ow t he f e de r a l or s t a t e gove r nm e nt s t o i nt e r ve ne t o m a na ge o r l i m i t pr i va t e

pr ope r t y r i ght s f or t he us e o f por e s pa c e f or G S

. O t he r w i s e

, s t a t e s or pr i va t e pr ope r t y

ow ne r s c oul d de m a nd hi gh r e nt a l r a t e s t ha t c oul d b l oc k de ve l opm e nt of C C S

.4 15. P ot e nt i al H e al t h or E nv i r onm e nt al I m

pac t s ot he r t han t o G r oundw at e r : W hi l e w e

be l i e ve t ha t t he r i s k of he a l t h or e nvi r onm e nt a l i m pa c t s ot he r t ha n t o gr oundw a t e r i s

ve r y s l i ght f o r s i t e s t ha t a r e w e l l

- c ha r a c t e r i z e d a nd w e l l

- ope r a t e d, w e unde r s t a nd t ha t

t hi s i s a t opi c o f c onc e r n t o t he pub l i c

. T he i na bi l i t y of t he pr opos e d U I C C l a s s V I

r ul e s t o a ddr e s s t he s e c onc e r ns c a r r i e s t he pot e nt i a l t o unde r m i ne publ i c a c c e pt a nc e of

C C S

. S houl d s uc h i m pa c t s oc c ur unde r t he pr opos e d U I C C l a s s V I r ul e s

, s om e o t he r

r e gul a t or w oul d ne e d t o i n t e r ve ne

. I t w oul d be p r e f e r a bl e

, a nd m o r e e f f i c i e nt

, t o ha ve

s i t e pe r m i t t i ng c onduc t e d by a p r ogr a m w i t h t he a u

t hor i t y t o m a na ge a l l po t e nt i a l

r i s ks f r om C O 2 i nj e c t i on c om p r e he ns i ve l y.

16. L ong

- t e r m L i abi l i t y : W i de s pr e a d c om m e r c i a l de pl oym e nt of C C S r e qui r e s a c l e a r

pr i or unde r s t a ndi ng of w ha t e nt i t y w i l l be r e s pons i bl e a nd f i na nc i a l l y l i a bl e f o r

a s s ur i ng t ha t i nj e c t e d C O 2 r e m a i ns s a f e l y unde r gr o und a f t e r ope r a t i ons a t t he s i t e

c e a s e

. P r i va t e s e c t or e nt i t i e s of t e n ha ve r e l a t i ve l y s hor t t i m e

- hor i z ons a nd l i f e t i m e s

i n c om pa r i s on w i t h t he pe r i od ove r w hi c h i nj e c t e d C O 2 m us t r e m a i n s e que s t e r e d.

T hus

, w e ha ve s e r i ous doubt s a bout t he e f f i c a c y of hol di ng ope r a t o r s r e s pons i bl e i n

pe r pe t ui t y, a s unde r t he p r opos e d U I C c l a s s V I r ul e s

. A num be r of a l t e r na t i ve

s t r a t e gi e s c oul d be us e d t o f i na nc e a nd m a na ge l on g

- t e r m l i a bi l i t y, a s de t a i l e d i n

C ha pt e r s 7 a nd 8 of t he a t t a c he d r e por t

. W e be l i e ve t ha t s e t t l i ng t he que s t i on of l ong

t e r m l i a bi l i t y

, i n a m a nne r t ha t g i ve s c onf i de nc e t o bot h t he publ i c a nd pr oj e c t

f i na nc i a l ba c ke r s

, w i l l r e qui r e e i t he r a m e ndm e nt of t he S D W A

, or pa s s a ge of ne w

l e gi s l a t i on, t o a l l ow l e ga l r e s pons i bi l i t y f or c l os e d G S s i t e s t o be t r a ns f e r r e d t o a t hi r d

pa r t y or gove r nm e nt e nt i t y.

S p e c i f i c c om m e n t s on t h e p r op os e d r u l e

17. I t e r at i v e A r e a of R e v i e w : W e s uppor t t he pr opos a l t o r e e va l ua t e i t e r a t i ve l y t he a r e a o f

r e vi e w ove r t he pr oj e c t l i f e c yc l e a nd t o a l l ow pha s e d c or r e c t i ve a c t i on ( s e c

. 146. 84 )

.

18. R e l at i ons hi p be t w e e n C l as s V I W e l l s an d C l as s I I W e l l s : R e gul a t i ons f or G S s i t e

pe r m i t t i ng s houl d c r e a t e a c l e a r pa t h by w hi c h C O 2 - f l ood e nha nc e d oi l r e c ove r y ( E O R ) p r oj e c t s pe r m i t t e d a s U I C C l a s s I I w e l l s

, c a n be c om e c om m e r c i a l

s e que s t r a t i on pr oj e c t s unde r ne w r e gul a t i ons

. T he r i s k pr of i l e a t a s i t e ope r a t e d f o r

E O R w i l l c ha nge w he n t he s i t e t r a ns i t i ons t o G S a s di f f

e r e nt s t r e s s e s a r e pl a c e d on

w e l l s a nd ge ol ogi c f or m a t i ons

. T he C l a s s V I r ul e s s houl d pr ovi de m or e s pe c i f i c a nd

c om pr e he ns i ve gui da nc e on how a n ope r a t o r m us t de m ons t r a t e t ha t a C l a s s I I s i t e c a n

s a f e l y c ont a i n i nj e c t e d C O 2 a s a c om m e r c i a l s e que s t r a t i on pr oj e c t

. T he pr opos e d

C l a s s V I r ul e s l a y t he gr oundw o r k, by p r ovi di ng t h e D i r e c t or w i t h di s c r e t i on t o

“ gr a ndf a t he r ” onl y t he c ons t r uc t i on r e qui r e m e nt s f or e xi s t i ng C l a s s I a nd C l a s s I I

w e l l s s e e ki ng a pe r m i t f o r G S ( p r ovi de d he / s he i s a bl e t o m a ke a de t e r m i na t i on t ha t

t he s e w e l l s w oul d not e nda nge r U S D W s ) a nd r e qu i r i ng ope r a t o r s t o m e e t a l l ot he r

r e qui r e m e nt s of t he pr opos e d r ul e

. H ow e ve r

, a ddi t i ona l c ondi t i ons a r e ne e de d, s uc h

a s :

 E s t a bl i s hm e nt of m oni t o r i ng a nd r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s f or E O R s i t e s t ha t

w i s h t o be e l i gi bl e f or c r os s ove r ;5  S pe c i f i c a t i on of t he t e c hni c a l r e qui r e m e nt s f or a n ope r a t or t o de m ons t r a t e

t ha t a C l a s s I I w e l l c oul d be r e c l a s s i f i e d a s a C l a s s V I w e l l ; a nd

 M uc h of t he da t a f or E O R pr o j e c t s i s c ur r e nt l y pr o pr i e t a r y. T he r ul e

s houl d a ddr e s s w ha t t ype s of da t a m us t be m a de p ubl i c f or E O R s i t e s t ha t

w i s h t o be e l i gi bl e f or c r os s ove r

.

S i m i l a r c l a r i f i c a t i ons a r e ne e de d f or p i l ot a nd e a r l y

- m ove r pr o j e c t s pe r m i t t e d a s U I C

C l a s s V w e l l s w hi c h l a t e r m i ght be c onve r t e d t o c o m m e r c i a l s e que s t r a t i on pr oj e c t s

.

19. P os t

- i nj e c t i on s i t e c ar e : W e s uppor t t he s i t e

- s pe c i f i c a ppr oa c h t o pos t

- i n j e c t i on s i t e

c a r e t ha t E P A pr opos e s i n s e c t i on 146

. 93.

20. Si t e c l os ur e : W e s uppor t t he ge ne r a l a ppr oa c h t ha t E P A pr opos e s t o de t e r m i ne t he

l e ngt h of t he pos t

- i nj e c t i on s i t e c a r e pe r i od ( a pe r f or m a nc e s t a nda r d, a nc hor e d by a

s ugge s t e d dur a t i on of s e ve r a l de c a de s )

. H ow e ve r

, w e s ugge s t t hr e e m odi f i c a t i ons : 1)

T he r ul e s houl d r e qui r e t ha t t he pos t

- i nj e c t i on s i t e c a r e a nd s i t e

- c l os ur e pl a n s pe c i f y

t hr e s hol ds f or de m ons t r a t i ng t ha t t he G S p r oj e c t n o l onge r pos e s a n e nda nge r m e nt t o

U S D W s ; 2) T he r ul e s houl d pr ovi de m e c ha ni s m s t o c oor di na t e i nf o r m a t i on a nd

a l l oc a t e r e s pons i bi l i t y i f s i t e c ondi t i ons dur i n g t he pos t

- i nj e c t i on s i t e c a r e pe r i od a r e

a l t e r e d by ope r a t i ons o f a not he r G S p r oj e c t i n t he ba s i n; a nd, 3) T he 50

- ye a r t i m e

pe r i od s houl d not be c om e a pr e s c r i pt i ve de f a

ul t

. T he r e i s not ye t e nough e xpe r i e nc e

t o s e t t hi s a s t he s ugge s t e d dur a t i on o f t he p os t

- i nj e c t i on s i t e c a r e pe r i od

. F or now

, a

pe r f or m a nc e s t a nda r d a l one i s p r e f e r a bl e a nd c r e a t e s t he r i ght i nc e nt i ve s t o pr ot e c t

U S D W s

. A f t e r e xpe r i e nc e ha s be e n ga i ne d f r om e a r l y pr oj e c t s

, t he r ul e c oul d be

a m e nde d t o i nc l ude a s ugge s t e d dur a t i on

.

21. P e r f

or m anc e s t andar d

s : W e s uppor t E P A ’ s ge ne r a l a ppr oa c h of e s t a bl i s hi ng

pe r f or m a nc e s t a nda r ds f or a c c e pt a bl e ope r a t i on, b ut s t r ongl y c a ut i on t ha t a c t i on

t hr e s hol ds or pe r f o r m a nc e s t a nda r ds e s t a bl i s he d f or t he C l a s s V I r ul e s houl d not be

e xpr e s s e d a s qua nt i t a t i ve r e qui r e m e nt s f or m a xi m u m l e a ka ge ( or m i ni m um r e t e nt i on)

f r om t he i nj e c t i on z one

. C ur r e nt m oni t or i ng m e t ho ds c a nnot qua nt i f y l ow

- l e ve l

l e a ka ge r a t e s or vol um e r e t a i ne d a t r e a s ona bl e c os t or w i t h ne e de d pr e c i s i on, a s

de t a i l e d i n C ha pt e r 4 of t he a t t a c he d r e por t

. T hus

, ot he r pe r f o r m a nc e m e a s ur e s a r e

ne e de d.

22. P r i m ac y i s s ue s : M a ny ge ol ogi c a l f or m a t i ons s ui t a bl e f or G S s pa n s t a t e bounda r i e s

,

m a ki ng c ons i s t e nt r e gul a t i on i m po r t a nt

. T he p r opo s e d r ul e c a l l s f or " D i r e c t or

di s c r e t i on" ove r a num be r of i m por t a nt i s s ue s

. T hi s f l e xi bi l i t y i s ne c e s s a r y be c a us e

of ge ol ogi c va r i a bi l i t y a c r os s t he U

. S

. , but s houl d be ba l a nc e d by i nc l us i on of s pe c i f i c

t hr e s hol ds f or a c t i on

, t o pr ovi de c ons i s t e nc y. I n ot he r w or ds

, be c a us e of t he pot e nt i a l

f

or ba s i n

- s c a l e

, i nt e r s t a t e i n t e r a c t i ons w i t h G S

, t he pr i m a c y f or C l a s s V I w e l l s s houl d

be m or e c ons t r a i ne d t ha n f or ot he r w e l l c l a s s e s

.6 23. A ppr opr i at e out r e ac h t e c hni que s : T he pr opos e d r u l e ’ s 30

- da y publ i c c om m e nt pe r i od

f

or G S w e l l s s houl d be e xt e nde d t o a t l e a s t 60 da ys be c a us e of t h e c om pl e xi t y of t he

i s s ue s

. E P A s houl d ut i l i z e m ode r n m e di a ( e l e c t r o ni c a nd di gi t a l c om m uni c a t i ons

, i nc l udi ng, but not l i m i t e d t o w e b

- pa ge s a nd e

- m a i l s ) t o i nf o r m l oc a l c i t i z e ns a bout G S

s i t e pe r m i t t i ng.

24. U s e of pr opr i e t ar y m ode l s : U s e of pr opr i e t a r y m od e l s ha s t he pot e nt i a l t o e xa gge r a t e

i nf or m a t i on a s ym m e t r y a m ong p r oj e c t ope r a t or s

, r e gul a t or s a nd t he publ i c

. I f t he

pr oj e c t ope r a t or us e s pr opr i e t a r y s of t w a r e f o r m od e l i ng, t he n t he y s houl d be r e qui r e d

t o pr ovi de a l l ke y m ode l i ng a s s um pt i ons

, r un s e ns i t i v i t y a na l ys e s on i m por t a nt i nput s

,

or pr ovi de a ddi t i ona l m ode l r uns o f t he da t a i n a p ubl i c l y a va i l a bl e m ode l a c c e pt a bl e

t o E P A

.

25. P e r v e r s e i nc e nt i v e s : T he s t r i nge nc y of t he C l a s s V I r ul e s ( r e l a t i ve t o t he ot he r U I C

w e l l c l a s s e s ) m a y c r e a t e pe r ve r s e i nc e nt i v e s

. F o r e xa m pl e

, a n ope r a t o r c oul d a dd

hydr oge n s ul f i de t o t he c a r bon di oxi de s t r e a m a nd t he n s e e k a C l a s s I pe r m i t w i t h l e s s

s t r i nge nt a r e a of r e vi e w

, m oni t or i ng

, pos t

- i nj e c t i on a nd c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s t ha n a

C l a s s V I pe r m i t

. T hus

, E P A s houl d r e vi e w t he r e q ui r e m e nt s a nd a ppl i c a bi l i t y o f C l a s s

I w e l l s i n c onj unc t i on w i t h t he pr opos e d r ul e m a ki n g f or C l a s s V I w e l l s

.

C on c l u s i on

26. T he C C S R e gul a t or y P r oj e c t s ha r e s E P A 's c om m i t m e nt

, a nd t ha t of ot he r pa r t i c i pa nt s

i n t he na t i ona l di s c us s i on, t o a dva nc i ng t he p ot e nt i a l f or s a f e a nd e f f

e c t i ve ge ol ogi c a l

s e que s t r a t i on of c a r bon di oxi de

. T o t ha t e nd, t he a ge nc y's dr a f t r ul e s a r e

, s ubj e c t t o

t he s pe c i f i c c onc e r ns r a i s e d i n our c om m e nt s

, a l a u da bl e e f f

or t t o de f i ne a r e gul a t or y

f r a m e w or k f or a s s ur i ng t ha t c a r bon c a p t ur e a nd s e que s t r a t i on pr oc e e d i n a m a nne r

t ha t i s c a l c ul a t e d t o p r ot e c t t he na t i on's w a t e r s uppl y. B ut

, i n our j udgm e nt

, t he

obj e c t i ve s w e s ha r e w i t h E P A a r e be s t s e r ve d by a r e gul a t or y s c he m e t ha t t a ke s i nt o

a c c ount

, a nd ul t i m a t e l y a dva nc e s

, t he f ul l r a nge o f e nvi r onm e nt a l i m pe r a t i ve s t ha t

dr i ve t he de ve l opm e nt of C C S i n t he f i r s t pl a c e

. W i t h t he i m pe ndi ng a dve nt of a ne w

a dm i ni s t r a t i on a nd a ne w C ongr e s s

, bot h of w hi c h a r e e xpe c t e d t o be a t t e nt i ve t o

i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o c l i m a t e c ha nge

, t he po t e nt i a l f o r n e a r

- t e r m l e gi s l a t i ve a c t i on i s

r e l a t i ve l y hi gh. I n t he s e c i r c um s t a nc e s

, E P A s houl d c ons i de r us i ng e xi s t i ng

r e gul a t or y a ut hor i t y unde r t he U I C pr ogr a m t o l i c e ns e t he f i r s t f e w C C S pr oj e c t s

, but

w a i t t o f i na l i z e r ul e s f o r G S w e l l s unt i l t he y c a n be dr a f t e d unde r t he a ut hor i t y of ne w

or a m e nde d l e gi s l a t i on t ha t e na bl e s m or e c om pr e h e ns i ve r e gul a t i on.

## This document is not availabl e in Regulations.gov since it

contains copyrighted material that may not be reproduced

without consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Read ing Room to view

or receive a copy of this docu ment. Requests for copies may be

made as follows:

In person/writing:

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334

Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744

Email:

docket-customerservice@epa.govLetter ID: 0233

Commenter: M. Granger Morgan

Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21898 Letter Lines: 63 to 71

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: Overarching issues and concerns

6. We applaud EPA’s work toward developing regulations for GS. It is urgent that

the U.S. moves forward with deployment of CCS technologies: EPA’s effort to

write rules for GS wells in corporating sound scientific and technical knowledge

contributes to creating a re gulatory framework that ensures that GS will be done

in a manner that is safe and environmen tally sound. The speed with which EPA

drafted these rules, and the inclusivene ss of the rulewriting process, are well

matched to the urgency and broa d interest in the problem.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital

component of successful rulemaking. The Agen cy appreciates the degree of cooperation,

participation, and active dialogue between the EP A and stakeholders and will continue to work

with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21899 Letter Lines: 73 to 91

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

ownership

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2

Comment: 7. EPA’s laudable efforts notwithstanding, we believe the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) does not provide adequate aut hority to comprehensively regulate GS.

Because the statutory authority for the UI C Program derives from the SDWA, the

proposed rule is unable to address key issues that must be resolved for

commercial-scale GS,[FN1] such as:

• ownership of pore space (discussed in Chapter 5 of attached report);

1• potential human health or ecological im pacts if carbon dioxide leaks to the

surface or near-surface (discussed in Chapte rs 1, 4, and 6 of attached report);

• long-term liability (discussed in Chapte rs 7 and 8 of attached report); and,

• greenhouse gas regulatory accounting, which will be the enabling link to

incentive structures that ma ke GS economically viable (discussed in Chapters 8

and 9 of attached report).

[FN1: These limitations are acknowledged by the agency in the preamble to the

rule. (73 FR 43,495)]

8. Failure to resolve the above issues coul d make the commercial development of

CCS impossible.

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; and the Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to

evaluate areas of potential appli cability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not

limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Cons ervation 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.

EPA is also aware that states ar e currently in various stages of developing statut ory frameworks,

regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressi ng CCS and GS. States can use

multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws

and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space

ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and em ergency preparedness, a nd maximization of state

oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to wo rk closely with states and tribes as they

develop Class VI primacy programs in this broa der context. EPA adds that states may adopt

more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

The final rulemaking falls within EPA’s aut hority under the SDWA. EP A clarifies that the

SDWA provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for

underground injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from

endangerment. Thus EPA does not have author ity under the SDWA to address other general

issues related to CCS, such as capture and transportation. EPA clar ifies that the GS rule does not

address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the

injection of fluids. EPA adds that regulating carbon cap-and trade is outside of the UIC

program's authority under SDWA.

2EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does

not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long-term liability from owners or operators to

the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21900 Letter Lines: 93 to 97

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: 9. The proposed rules for Class VI GS wells are more stringent than the other

UIC well classes (73 FR 43524-43525) yet they do not comprehensively manage

issues of concern for GS. With this lim itation, the proposed rules run the risk

of locking in a regulatory framework that ultimately inhibits widespread

commercial deployment of CCS.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not promote or encourage the use of

GS; rather, it ensures consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations

across the United States and provides requireme nts to prevent endangerment of USDWs in

anticipation of the eventual us e of GS to reduce CO2 emissi ons. EPA believes that the GS

regulation will provide the regulatory certainty a nd oversight that operators have requested, and

allow for the deployment of this key climate change mitigation technology that could be

deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. Please see the re mainder of EPA's responses to this comment

for further details.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21901 Letter Lines: 99 to 108

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

ownership

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2

Comment: Overarching recommendations

10. The inability of the proposed rule to manage the issues listed above should

be remedied by either:

a. passage of new federal legislation to supplement the UIC program and amend

the SDWA; or

b. passage of new freestanding federa l legislation to regulate GS

comprehensively.

These options are detailed in Chapter 6 of the attached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE

REPORT].

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. As described

above, EPA recognizes that a more comprehensiv e framework may be needed and that some

stakeholders remain uncertain about the potential app licability of other fe deral environmental

3statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating

the need for a more comprehensive regulator y framework for this emerging technology.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21902 Letter Lines: 110 to 118

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: 11. To prevent creation of an overly inhi bitive regulatory framework, the UIC

program should continue to permit we lls injecting CO2 under existing well

classes and/or the proposed Class VI rule s, for a limited and defined period.

Concurrently, a Commission or an Interage ncy Task Force (established either

through legislation or execu tive order of the Presiden t) should gather and

synthesize results from pilot and early commercial-scale projects, providing

recommendations to Congress on the prope r format to regulate widespread

commercial CCS. Chapter 11 of the attach ed report details this two-stage

approach [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE REPORT].

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to

address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 a nd to ensure that USDWs are

protected from endangerment. The GS rule c ontains tailored requirements for the permitting,

geologic site characterization, AoR and corre ctive action, well construction, operation,

mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plu gging, post-injection site care, and site closure

of GS wells that directly addre ss issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

The Agency is using an adaptive approach to re gulate GS injection. EPA will collect and review

project data on early GS projects, including pilot projects, to de termine whether the appropriate

amount and types of information and documentati on are being collected. EPA plans, every six

years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determin e whether the appropriate amount

and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if

modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. EPA does not plan to establish a

task force for this purpose, however.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21903 Letter Lines: 120 to 130

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

Comment: 12. Adoption of the Class VI rules should be accompanied by funding adequate to

implement them. Regulation of GS through the UIC program cannot be effective

unless funding is provided commensurate to the goals of the Class VI program.

The EPA UIC budget, including grants to state programs, is chronically

underfunded. Annual federal appropriations to the UIC program have been

approximately $11 million: less than ha lf the funding level ($25 million per

year) authorized in the SDWA. Studies by the Ground Water Protection Council

show that the Class V program would n eed an additional $50 million annually to

4meet its objectives and that the Class II program is under-funded by

approximately $25 million annually. An under-resourced regulatory agency cannot

ensure the safe and effective operation of GS projects.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative

challenges including resource concerns , and will work closely with the states to assist them in

resolving funding issues or acquiri ng the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the

unique technical challenges associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate th at they have adequate resources to implement

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent

matching requirement.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21904 Letter Lines: 132 to 145

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

ownership

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2

Comment: Issues that would requirement amendmen t of the SWDA or passage of new

legislation

13. Need to balance multiple environmental interests: Protection of drinking

water is an essential environmental goal, but must be balanced with avoidance of

the dangerous impacts of climate cha nge. As mandated by the SDWA, the UIC

Program rules have been developed with th e objective of preven ting any migration

of injected fluid or other contaminants into USDWs. In practice, however,

regulatory treatment of injectate migrati on has been less clear-cut. For example

the experience in Florida, discussed in Chapte r 6 of the attached re port [SEE PDF TO VIEW

THE REPORT],

suggests that it would be hi ghly desirable to have arrangements in place ahead

of time to allow balancing of potentia lly conflicting national environmental

interests. We recommend that the SDWA be amended to allow balancing multiple

environmental interests.

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. As described

above, EPA recognizes that a more comprehensiv e framework may be needed and that some

stakeholders remain uncertain about the potential app licability of other fe deral environmental

statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating

the need for a more comprehensive regulator y framework for this emerging technology.

5Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21905 Letter Lines: 147 to 158

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

ownership

Comment: 14. Ownership of Pore Space: Considerable am biguity exists today in the U.S. as

to the current ownership of the deep por e space that would hold injected CO2,

and how the right to use deep pore space would be obtained for GS purposes. It

appears that most injectors of waste flui ds into other well cl asses regulated by

the UIC have not secured rights or permission to use the pore space from any

surface or sub-surface property owners. At least a few of those injection

projects likely involve volumes of fluid as large or larger than the volumes of

CO2 that will be involved in commercial-sca le CCS projects. In order for CCS to

remain an economic possibility, new legisl ation must allow the federal or state

governments to intervene to manage or lim it private property rights for the use

of pore space for GS. Otherwise, states or private property owners could demand

high rental rates that could block development of CCS.

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: 0233 Comment ID: 21906 Letter Lines: 160 to 169

Comment Code: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS

Comment Code: 1650 1.3.5 Human health impacts

Comment Code: 1660 1.3.6 Ecosystem impacts (soil, air, surface water)

Comment: 15. Potential Health or Environmental Im pacts other than to Groundwater: While

we believe that the risk of health or environmental impacts other than to

groundwater is very slight for sites th at are well-characterized and welloperated, we understand that this is a t opic of concern to the public. The

inability of the proposed UIC Class VI ru les to address these concerns carries

the potential to undermine public acceptan ce of CCS. Should such impacts occur

under the proposed UIC Class VI rules, so me other regulator would need to

intervene. It would be preferable, and mo re efficient, to have site permitting

conducted by a program with the authority to manage all potential risks from CO2

injection comprehensively.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that properly managed GS projects present lower risk. EPA

believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory

framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address

6endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule c ontains minimum technical criteria for the

permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well

plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs

are protected from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CC S, 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 protecti ng USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does

not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for a ll areas related to GS,

such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program

is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA ag rees that the UIC Program, under the authority

of the SDWA, 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 i ssues associated with

large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoya ncy of CO2, its corrosivity in

the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility

within subsurface geologic formations.

To the comment that the geologic siting require ments could create a negative public perception,

EPA believes that a demonstrati on to the public, through the promulgation of the GS rule, that

extensive data have been collected and evaluate d will likely improve confidence in the project

and help address public questions and concerns.

Regarding the suggestion to develop an integrat ed permitting process that addresses the entire

CCS process, EPA clarifies that the UIC Program's authority is limited to ensuring that GS

projects protect USDWs from endangerment. Over sight of the capture a nd transport of CO2 is

outside of SDWA authority. EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS

and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protecte d 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; and the Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to

evaluate areas of potential appli cability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not

limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Cons ervation 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 redundanc y 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.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21907 Letter Lines: 171 to 184

7Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: 16. Long-term Liability: Widespread comme rcial deployment of CCS requires a

clear prior understanding of what entity will be responsible and financially

liable for assuring that injected CO 2 remains safely underground after

operations at the site cease. Private s ector entities often have relatively

short time-horizons and lifetimes in comparison with the period over which

injected CO2 must remain sequestered. Thus, we have serious doubts about the

efficacy of holding operators responsible in perpetuity, as under the proposed

UIC class VI rules. A number of alternativ e strategies could be used to finance

and manage long-term liability, as detailed in Chapters 7 and 8 of the attached

report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE RE PORT]. We believe that settli ng the question of long-term

liability, in a

manner that gives confidence to both the public and proj ect financial backers,

will require either amendment of the SDWA, or passage of new legislation, to

allow legal responsibility for closed GS sites to be transferred to a third

party or government entity.

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

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 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.

8Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21908 Letter Lines: 186 to 190

Comment Code: 3500 2.2.3 Area of Review Reevaluation (seeking comment)

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

Comment: Specific comments on the proposed rule

17. Iterative Area of Review: We support th e proposal to reeval uate iteratively

the area of review over the project life cycle and to allow phased corrective

action (sec. 146.84).

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport of AoR reevaluations and

phased corrective action. EPA believes that th e AoR reevaluation proc ess at §146.84(e) provides

additional opportunities to verify that the mode ls have accurately pred icted movement of the

CO2 plume and to make any needed adjustments to corrective action or monitoring at the site,

and has retained this approach in the final rule.

EPA agrees that phased corrective action may pr ovide many benefits to a project including, but

not limited to, spreading the burden of cost, avoi ding delays in project start-up, allowing for use

of future, improved corrective act ion techniques and addressing unanticipated changes in the

movement of the CO2 plume or pressure front . EPA believes that the phased corrective action

approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS

regulation.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21909 Letter Lines: 192 to 219

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: 18. Relationship between Class VI Wells a nd Class II Wells: Regulations for GS

site permitting should create a clear pa th by which CO2-flood enhanced oil

recovery (EOR) projects permitted as UIC Class II wells, can become commercial

sequestration projects under new regulat ions. The risk profile at a site

operated for EOR will change when the si te transitions to GS as different

stresses are placed on wells and geologic formations. The Class VI rules should

provide more specific and comprehensiv e guidance on how an operator must

demonstrate that a Class II site can safely contain injected CO2 as a commercial

sequestration project. The proposed Class VI rules lay the groundwork, by

providing the Director with discretion to "grandfather" only the construction

requirements for existing Class I and Cl ass II wells seeking a permit for GS

(provided he/she is able to make a de termination that these wells would not

endanger USDWs) and requiring operators to meet all other requirements of the

proposed rule. However, additional conditions are needed, such as:

9• Establishment of monitoring and reporting requirements for EOR sites that wish

to be eligible for crossover;

• Specification of the technical requireme nts for an operator to demonstrate

that a Class II well could be reclassified as a Class VI well; and

• Much of the data for EOR projects is currently proprietary. The rule should

address what types of data must be made public for EOR sites that wish to be

eligible for crossover.

Similar clarifications are needed for pilot and early-mover projects permitted

as UIC Class V wells which later might be converted to commercial sequestration

projects.

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.

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

Class II, where the primary purpos e 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 the transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA agrees that Class II wells are designed a nd constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The

final GS rule allows the construction of thes e wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided

the owner or operator can demons trate to the Director that th e 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).

EPA clarifies that monitoring a nd reporting requirements for all GS projects are described in

§146.90. This section requires owners or operators to develop a site-specific monitoring and

testing plan and submit it along with the permit application.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21910 Letter Lines: 221 to 222

10Comment Code: 5200 2.8.2 Post injection site care (seeking comment) (40 CFR 146.93)

Comment: 19. Post-injection site care: We support the site-speci fic approach to postinjection site care that EPA proposes in section 146.93.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s suppor t; the final rule retains this

provision.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21911 Letter Lines: 224 to 237

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

Comment Code: 5280 2.8.2.4 USDW non-endangerment demonstrations

Comment: 20. Site closure: We support the general a pproach that EPA proposes to determine

the length of the post-inj ection site care period (a performance standard,

anchored by a suggested duration of severa l decades). However, we suggest three

modifications: 1) The rule should require that the post-injec tion site care and

site-closure plan specify thresholds fo r demonstrating that the GS project no

longer poses an endangerment to USDWs; 2) The rule should provide mechanisms to

coordinate information and allocate respons ibility if site conditions during the

post-injection site care period are altere d by operations of another GS project

in the basin; and, 3) The 50-year time pe riod should not become a prescriptive

default. There is not yet enough experien ce to set this as the suggested

duration of the post-injecti on site care period. For now, a performance standard

alone is preferable and creates the right incentives to protect USDWs. After

experience has been gained from early pr ojects, the rule could be amended to

include a suggested duration.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the rule should not specify the criteria for setting the

monitoring timeframe. Instead, EPA believes that such determinations are site-specific and

should be described in a project- specific post-injection site care and site cl osure plan. However,

EPA disagrees that the plan should specify thresh olds for demonstrating that the GS project no

longer poses a risk of endangermen t to USDWs, but agrees that th is demonstration should be an

important consideration. EPA is developing guidances with recommended approaches for

developing and implementing post-injection site care and site closure pl ans and guidance that

describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and

monitoring wells, perform post-injection m onitoring, demonstrate non endangerment, and

perform site closure activities. Th e guidances will be available at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA agrees with commenters that there will be circumstances where it can be demonstrated in

less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longe r pose a risk of endangerment to

USDWs. For this reason, the fi nal GS regulation includes a provi sion that the Director may, at

his or her discretion, shorten the post-injection s ite care timeframe if the owner or operator can

demonstrate that the GS project does not pose an endangerment to USDW s, as specified in

§146.93(b)(2). Such a demonstration will be site-s pecific, and based on pressure monitoring and

11USDW impacts. EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from endangerment, a

default timeframe for post-injection site care is necessary. A 50-year post-injection site care

timeframe represents a reasona ble and protective monitoring period based on a review of

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public

comments.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21912 Letter Lines: 239 to 246

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operat ing Requirements (40 CFR 146.88)

Comment: 21. Performance standards: We support EP A’s general approach of establishing

performance standards for acceptable operati on, but strongly caution that action

thresholds or performance standards estab lished for the Class VI rule should not

be expressed as quantitativ e requirements for maximum leakage (or minimum

retention) from the injection zone. Cu rrent monitoring methods cannot quantify

low-level leakage rates or volume retained at reasonable cost or with needed

precision, as detailed in Chapter 4 of the at tached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE REPORT].

Thus, other

performance measures are needed.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not set specific quantitative

requirements for maximum leakage (or minimum re tention) of CO2 from the injection zone.

Rather, the intent of the rule is to ensure th at injection wells are permitted, sited, constructed,

operated, monitored, and plugged in a manner that does not endanger USDWs. The rule affords

the Director discretion and flexibility to se t permit conditions to ensure that USDWs are

protected from the impacts of GS projects.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21913 Letter Lines: 248 to 255

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

Comment: 22. Primacy issues: Many geological form ations suitable for GS span state

boundaries, making consistent regulation impor tant. The proposed rule calls for

"Director discretion" over a number of im portant issues. This flexibility is

necessary because of geologic variabi lity across the U.S., but should be

balanced by inclusion of sp ecific thresholds for action, to provide consistency.

In other words, because of the poten tial for basin-scale, interstate

interactions with GS, the primacy for Cla ss VI wells should be more constrained

than for other well classes.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of allowing Director's

discretion given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes

12that State, Tribal, Territorial, a nd DI UIC Program Direct ors are in the best position to evaluate

the unique issues related to well depth, geol ogy, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI

well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Cl ass VI wells because each decision made will be

site-specific and conditions will di ffer from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for

these site-specific decisions with the need for mi nimum standards to ensure national consistency.

To ensure the final rule is applied consisten tly, EPA is developing guidance materials and plans

to conduct on-line and in-person training for Stat es, Tribes, and Territories that describe the

process of applying for and rece iving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class

VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and ad ministrative issues on

developing GS regulations that ar e the equivalent of minimum fede ral criteria and requirements.

The guidance will be available at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the

permits so that USDWs are not being sufficientl y protected from endangerment, it will consider

changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21914 Letter Lines: 256 to 259

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing p ublic participation requirements

(Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment)

Comment:

23. Appropriate outreach techniques: The proposed rule’s 30-day public comment

period for GS wells should be extended to at least 60 days because of the

complexity of the issues. EPA should u tilize modern media (electronic and

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a 60-day comment period should be required for all

GS projects. EPA believes that the existing pu blic comment period requirements at 40 CFR

124.10, which requires a minimum 30-day comment pe riod for draft permits, are appropriate for

GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is a ppropriate to impose longer time frames if they

are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authorit y under 40 CFR 124.10 to

extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted.

Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may incl ude the level of public interest

in a GS project, specific permit details , or project-specific considerations.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21915 Letter Lines: 259 to 261

Comment Code: 5540 2.10.2 Need for additional public partic ipation requirements/ use of new

information technology (seeking comment)

Comment: complexity of the issues. EPA should u tilize modern media (electronic and

digital communications, including, but not limited to web-pages and e-mails) to

inform local citizens about GS site permitting.

13Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that th e use of new forms of information

technology can improve public participation and unde rstanding of GS project s and the associated

injection technologies involve d. EPA does not require the use of any new information

technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities

to use the Internet as well as both new and es tablished tools to explain and post information on

the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and

other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides

GS-related information on its website at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. EPA currently uses social

networking applications for important in formation (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will

encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public

informed of GS projects.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21916 Letter Lines: 263 to 268

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

Comment: 24. Use of proprietary models: Use of pr oprietary models ha s the potential to

exaggerate information asymmetry among project operators, re gulators and the

public. If the project operator uses pr oprietary software for modeling, then

they should be required to provide all key modeling assumptions, run sensitivity

analyses on important inputs, or provide a dditional model runs of the data in a

publicly available model acceptable to EPA.

Individual Response: EPA shares the commenter’s concern about the need to evaluate the

inputs and assumptions used. EPA will allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the

requirements for the GS regulation, as long as GS well operators using a proprietary model

clearly disclose, to the Director's satisfacti on, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and

scientific basis. EPA also agrees that sensitiv ity analyses should be presented by the owner or

operator and evaluated by the Director. If during the permit review, the Director determines that

modeling results are too wide-ranging, further in formation will be required of the owner or

operator. EPA adds that its Confidential Bu siness Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will

apply to the use of proprietary models.

The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine

whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are

being collected, and to determine if modificatio ns to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21917 Letter Lines: 270 to 276

Comment Code: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

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

14Comment: 25. Perverse incentives: The stringency of the Class VI rules (relative to the

other UIC well classes) may create perverse incentives. For example, an operator

could add hydrogen sulfide to the carbon di oxide stream and then seek a Class I

permit with less stringent area of re view, monitoring, pos t-injection and

closure requirements than a Class VI permit. Thus, EPA should review the

requirements and applicability of Class I wells in conjunction with the proposed

rulemaking for Class VI wells.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment a nd does not anticipate this type of

scenario will take place because under the final GS rule, owners or operators must determine

whether the CO2 stream is haza rdous under EPA’s RCRA regulations; If so, any injection of the

hazardous CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well under 40 CFR

Part 146 Subpart G. For Class I hazardous wells, owners or operators ar e required under 40 CFR

286.6 to demonstrate, to a reason able degree of certain ty, that there will be no migration of

hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or inj ection zone for as long as the wastes remain

hazardous or for 10,000 years via a fluid flow no mi gration petition. EPA anticipates that this

may be very difficult to demonstrate for long- term storage of CO2 at anticipated volumes.

Conversely, Class VI wells cannot be used for th e co-injection of RCRA hazardous wastes (i.e.,

hazardous wastes that are inject ed along with the CO2 stream).

EPA received many comments related to RCRA app licability to GS site s and has decided to

initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specificall y to examine the issue of RCRA applicability

to CO2 streams being geologically sequestere d, including the possible option of a conditional

exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these

comments as part of its development of that propos al. The Agency will consider issues particular

to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read

that proposed rule when it is published. The Ag ency notes that commenters who wish to submit

comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule.

EPA adds that revising the requirements for other cl asses of wells is outside the scope of the GS

rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0233 Comment ID: 21918 Letter Lines: 278 to 295

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: Conclusion

26. The CCS Regulatory Project shares EP A's commitment, and that of other

participants in the national discussion, to advancing the potential for safe and

effective geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. To that end, the agency's

draft rules are, subject to the specific concerns ra ised in our comments, a

laudable effort to define a regulator y framework for assuring that carbon

capture and sequestration proceed in a ma nner that is calculated to protect the

nation's water supply. But, in our judgme nt, the objectives we share with EPA

are best served by a regulato ry scheme that takes into account, and ultimately

1516 advances, the full range of environmental imperatives that drive the development

of CCS in the first place. With the impending advent of a new administration and

a new Congress, both of which are expected to be attentive to issues related to

climate change, the potential for near-ter m legislative action is relatively

high. In these circumstances, EPA should consider using existing regulatory

authority under the UIC program to license the first few CCS projects, but wait

to finalize rules for GS wells until they can be drafted under the authority of

new or amended legislation that enab les more comprehensive regulation.

Individual Response: The final rule is based on the most recent GS-related data, information,

and scientific research available. EPA believes that sufficient data have been collected to inform

the final GS rule. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates th at future experimental and full-scale projects

will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking approach.

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.