### 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.October 1 5 , 200 9

TO: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

FROM: Barbara Priest

, UIC Program Coordinator

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

– Wa ter Quality Division

811 S W Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 9720 4

SUBJECT: Comments on Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Geol ogic Sequestration (GS) W ells; Notice of D ata

A vailability a nd R equest for C omment

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed UIC require ments fo r the Geologic

Sequestration (GS) of Carbon Dioxide as Class VI systems based on the notice of new data

published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2009

. The Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) is providing comments on the propose d regulations based on

consultation with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Oregon

Department of W ater Resources and the Oregon Department of Human Services Drinking

Wa ter P rogram.

DOE

- Sponsored Regional Carbon Sequestration Partner ship Projects (III.B.)

DEQ supports the pilot project approach that EPA has taken in partnership with the Department

of Energy. A thorough site characterization is the most important requirement for most geologic

sequestration projects

. DEQ also support s the testing and research of analytical models to

ensure protection of drinking water resources.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Studies (III.C.)

The LBNL is currently evaluating potential effects of CO 2 injection on ground water and

surrounding formations, including a case study in a sedimentary basin. We have concern that

this study does not address other types of basins which may be proposed for geologic

sequestration in Oregon. DEQ recommends that a dditional studies be pursued in different

basin scenarios on mobilization of constituents and likelihood or frequency of leakage risks.

Risk s

There are significant risks to GS. We note that GS is not the same as Enhanced Oil Recovery

(EOR) or E nhanced G as R ecovery (EGR) . GS needs to have high er standards than EOR

activities have had to date fo r the following reasons:

 GS is being considered in basins without proven oil and gas capture and holding

reservoirs.

 Oil and gas reservoirs are being considered fo r geologic sequestration even where

exhausted, and the amount of carbon dioxide to be injected is greater than used for

EOR/EGR and the goals of the injection are different.Page 2 of 6

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

 There is an unknown level of risk associated with large geologic sequestration p rojects.

Regulations must set high standards for site selection, site characterization and ongoing

monitoring.

 The proposed rules and new data also do not adequately address other types of

hazards, such as those associated with hydro fracing and impacts to existing faults.

EOR /EGR

We suggest keeping t he programs for EOR /EGR and geologic sequestration separated

. EOR /EGR occu rs in areas with oil reservoirs with little contemplation to the site's long term

storage and C0 2 containment characteristics. Lon g term GS CO 2 storage should be based upon

local site characterization work that verifies the reservoir provides the storage requirements with

minimal environmental risks.

EPA acknowledges that there are differences between Class II and VI operations that warrant

different treatment such as risk profiles, formation pressures, CO2 volumes, more opportunities

for mobilization, injection rates and operating conditions.

Inject ion D epth for GS Projects (IV)

We believe GS s hould only be allowed beneath the lowest U nderground S ource of D rinking

W ater (USDW )

. Protecting USD W is the most important aspect of the UIC program and of great

importance for the regional state economy and sustainability

. Verifiable containment or a cap

rock is critical to prevent the migration of C0 2 upward into USD Ws . Allowing the EPA Director or

states with delegated UIC programs to require additional confining zones is important to protect

USD Ws , espec ially in geologically marginal areas where GS may occur.

Wa iver Process (IV.D.)

EPA is considering an alternative through a waiver process to allow GS injection above and

between USD Ws under specific conditions that would provide f lexibility and allow fo r more site

specific assessment

. We do not support the waiver process allowing injection above and

between USD Ws and alternatives that will undermine long term protection of USD Ws for the

following reasons:

 The waiver process is a divergence from Class I and III requirements and would allow

for modifications and widespread use.

 GS in Oregon could be proposed in Columbia River Flood basalts not in saline basins, or

deep buried volcanic plains. Oregon currently has no exempt aquifers

– all aquifers

statewi de under the 1990 State Groundwater Act are considered to be protected and

potable.

 The waiver would place a greater burden on the state to administer this program that is

minimally supported by current EPA funding levels that are directed towards Class I and

II development.Page 3 of 6

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

Other I ssues and C oncerns No t A ddressed With N ew D ata

Area of Review

The proposed standards require modeling and tracking of the actual C0 2 plume and pressure

front, with periodic re

- evaluation of the modeled behavior as additional local experience is

gained with a GS project. We acknowledge that m odeling is a good method of predicting the

behavior of injected C0 2 but should not be relied upon without monitoring to verify the accuracy

of the modeled predictions. M odeling should be continually refined throughout the life of a

sequestration project.

We ll Standards

We believe the proposed well construction standards may be difficult or impossible to meet in

some geologic settings. The s tandards require a surface casing installed to the lowermost

USD W and cemented to the surface. In geologic settings with bedrock and deep drinking water

quality aquifers, it may be difficult to set the surface casings this deep. Oregon’s Columbia

River ba salts may be as deep as 10,000 feet and much of that depth with drinki ng water quality

ground water. The multiple flows and fractures in these beds make for difficult drilling and

frequently require setting intermediate casings. The standards should allow a protective casing

program that can be reliably installed in all geologic settings. Deep aquifers may provide the

most protective geologic settings for C0 2 injection and the well construction standards should

not discourage their use.

Down hole valves and other required down hole equipment may impact or prevent certain

monitoring techniques. It is important to require appropriate safeguards but leave some flexibility

to use new technologies as new methods are developed.

Monitoring

Direct monitoring of the formations immediately above the confining layer for a geologic

sequestration injection zone is an important requirement for the early detection of unacceptable

leakage or venting. The intent is to have no leakage or venting occur. Monitoring wells installed

into these formations should be required for all projects. Geophysical methods and other

indirect monitoring, while useful, should not be allowed to substitute for all direct monitoring

above the confining layer.

The number of wells drilled thr ough the confining layer into the inje ction zone should be

minimized a s each new well represents a risk of establishing a pathway for the migration of C0 2

or in

- situ fluids into shallower aquifers. Projects may be able to get sufficient monitoring data

from injection wells to minimize the need for stand

- alone injection zone monitoring wells.

Decisions on the level of direct and indirect monitoring should be made on a site

- by

- site basis,

based upon t he geologic characteristics

. S ome direct monitoring must be required above the

confining layer to confirm that indirect monitoring is accurate.

Periodic corrosion and well integrity testing is important for all pollution prevention programs.

This well t esting will help operators to focus maintenance and repair activities on the wells thatPage 4 of 6

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

are degrading. It is better to prevent leakage from a well breach than to fix the well after

discovering that it has leaked. We support adoption of requiring extensiv e corrosion controls

with monitoring until more data is available on how cement will react long term with CO 2

.

Remedial Action

T riggers should be established for when remedial action is required . The new r egulations should

address this during the permi tting process so the operator and regulatory agency know what

action is expected bef ore impacts are observed. E veryone will then understand wh at the

threshold is and will help to prevent legal efforts intended to delay the initiation of remedial

actions w hen environmental impacts have been observed.

Financial Assurance

Financial assurance accounts funded with real assets must be required as with other

environmental programs (e.g., RCRA)

. Financial tests and self insurance are of no value if a

company bec omes financially insolvent. Financial assurance is only of value if the assets

remain in the account after a company's financial demise.

Non

- C0 2 Contaminants

The proposed standard w ould allow co

- disposal of imported non

- C0 2 waste streams and non

C0 2 cont aminants to be injected with the C0 2 unless the contaminants would make the C02 a

hazardous waste. Injected gases may not qualify as a hazardous waste under current federal

standards. I t appears that the proposed rules would allow a facility to import wast e materials to

add to the C0 2 and be injected as a cheap disposal option and we believe this should not be

allowed to happen . Oregon administrative rules would prohibit the injection non

- C0 2 contaminants if technology is available for their removal . C urrent state rules also prohibit the

use of underground injection for most waste disposal. An alternative option would be to allow

non

- C0 2 contaminants only as specifically addressed in a facility's permit and a statement that

the non

- C0 2 contaminants must be by

- products of the C0 2 stream and may not be imported for

disposal by injection with the C0 2 . States should be able to adopt rules that are more restrictive

related to this issue.

Rules Subpart H Crite ria and Standards (CFR 146)

146.82 (b) R equired permit Information

DEQ suggest s a modification to this section stat ing “the map will also show faults”. Section

146.82(b) requires a map showing the injection wells and the applicable area of review, while

section 146.82 (c) to (d) describes “data obtai ned during logging and testing of the well

formation”. The last sentence in 146.82(b) should perhaps only state that information of public

record is required t o be included on this map [ section 146.82 (b) ] , and then note that the

requirements for maps and geological systems information in 146. 82 (c) to (d) are different.

Derived data and supplemental data should also be discussed in association with the site

assessment.

146.84(a) Area of r

eview and c orrective actionPage 5 of 6

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

This section state s ”that the area o f review is based, in part, on computational modeling

. ” We

would like to know how many types of modeling exist and what the industrial standards or

guidance is fo r the models. Relying on a computer model without detailed geological data is not

adequate

.

146.86(b) (3) Well construction

We interpret this regulation to impl y that wells can be grouted with cement in one or more

stages. The problem with cementing in stages is that it is possible to have cold joints that may

allow the movement of water or other fluids within the annual space. We would prefer that the

grout be placed in one continuous operation without a significant interruption. By that we mean

that the grout should not be allowed to set up to a point that a cold joint would be created when

continuing to place grout after an interruption of over 72 hours if Po rtland Cement is used, 48

hours if High Early Strength Type III Portland Cement is used

, or 6 hours if high Alumina

Cement is used. Other interruption times would vary depending upon the final se t time of the

proposed grout. W e also suggest it be required for continuous cementing to t ak e a minimum

amount of grout to complete the seal. For example, the rules should require that a minimum of

120% to 130% of the estimated volume of sealing material be used when sealing. W hile this

would not gu arantee an adequate seal, the chances of a sufficient seal would be greater with

the appropriate amount of grout. Too little grout raises a red flag.

146.87(b) Logging, sampling, and testing prior to operation

This r egulation states that the Director ma y accept cores from nearby wells i f the

owner/operator can demonstrate that core retrieval is not possible and that such cores are

representative of conditions of the well. We believe that c ores from nearby wells may not be

indicative of the conditions at the well being constructed and thus i f possible a down hole video

should be made to accurately show the conditions at the well site.

146.89 Mechanical i

ntegrity

T he term “significant’’ is of ten used when describing leaks. We propose t here should either be

a definition of significant or the wells should be adequately sealed so there are no leaks.

146.92 Well p lugging

The proposed rules describe plugs as a way to abandon Class VI wells. Class VI wells should

be properly abandoned to prevent a health or e nvironmental hazard by completely filling them

from the bottom up to the land surface with an approved sealant (e.g.

, cement) t o ensure t hese

we lls do not become a health hazard or environmental concern

. This assum es the well was

properly constructed in t he first place and not grandfathered in as is proposed. We suggest that

i f a w ell is found that is not properly constructed then another form of plugging may be

necessary to protect the groundwater resource

.Page 6 of 6

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

146.93 Post injection s ite c are and c losure

We suggest that post injection site care and closure data be required to be posted on

- line. This

does not address site reclamation beyond re

- vegetating the pad, which currently is regulated in

Oregon.

c: Dr. Vicki McConnell, DOGAMI

Donn Miller, W RD

Tom Pattee, OHD

- DW

Rod W eick, DEQLetter ID: 0366

Commenter: Barbara Priest

Organization: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27907 Letter Lines: 37 to 43

Comment Code: 2100 2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Projects

Comment: DOE

‐ Sponsored Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Projects (III.B.)

DEQ supports the pilot project approach that EPA has taken in partnership with

the Department of Energy. A thorough site characterization is the most

important requirement for most geologic sequestration projects. DEQ also

supports the testing and research of analytical models to ensure protection of

drinking water resources.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the pilot project approach will greatly enhance the knowledge of

site characterization and modeling needed for proper design and operation of GS projects.

Data and information collected during site characterization also informs the development of

construction and operating plans, provides inputs for AoR delineation models, and establishes baseline

information to which geochemical, geophysical, and hydrogeologic site monitoring data collected over

the life of the injection project can be compared.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27908 Letter Lines: 45 to 52

Comment Code: 2200 2.2. LBNL Studies

Comment: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Studies (III.C.)

The LBNL is currently evaluating potential effects of CO2 injection on ground

water and surrounding formations, including a case study in a sedimentary basin.

We have concern that this study does not address other types of basins which may

be proposed for geologic sequestration in Oregon. DEQ recommends that

additional studies be pursued in different basin scenarios on mobilization of

constituents and likelihood or frequency of leakage risks.

Individual Response: EPA continues to monitor the progress of research on the feasibility of varioustypes of geologic formations. For example, DOE's RCSPs are conducting numerous pilot projects that

inject CO2 into a variety of formation types, including saline, basalt, coal seams, and oil and gas

reservoirs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect and review project

data on early GS projects, including those that inject into formations such as coal seams and basalts, to

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

and being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine

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

collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27909 Letter Lines: 54 to 65

Comment Code: 3130 3.1.3. Addressing the Differences Between Class II and Class VI Wells

Comment: Risks

There are significant risks to GS. We note that GS is not the same as Enhanced

Oil Recovery (EOR) or Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR). GS needs to have

higher standards than EOR activities have had to date for the following reasons:

‐ GS is being considered in basins without proven oil and gas capture and

holding reservoirs.

‐ Oil and gas reservoirs are being considered for geologic sequestration even

where exhausted, and the amount of carbon dioxide to be injected is greater than

used for EOR/EGR and the goals of the injection are different.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that ER is different than GS, and clarifies that the final GS rule

requirements are designed to address these unique attributes of GS.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27910 Letter Lines: 75 to 87

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule

Comment: EOR/EGR

We suggest keeping the programs for EOR/EGR and geologic sequestration

separated. EOR/EGR occurs in areas with oil reservoirs with little contemplation

to the site's long term storage and CO2 containment characteristics. Long term GS

CO2 storage should be based upon local site characterization work that verifiesthe reservoir provides the storage requirements with minimal environmental

risks.

EPA acknowledges that there are differences between Class II and VI operations

that warrant different treatment such as risk profiles, formation pressures, CO2

volumes, more opportunities for mobilization, injection rates and operating

conditions.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27911 Letter Lines: 89 to 117

Comment Code: 3220 3.2.2. Comments in Opposition to the Approach

Comment: Injection Depth for GS Projects (IV)

We believe GS should only be allowed beneath the lowest Underground Source of

Drinking Water (USDW). Protecting USDW is the most important aspect of the UIC

program and of great importance for the regional state economy and

sustainability. Verifiable containment or a cap rock is critical to prevent the

migration of CO2 upward into USDWs. Allowing the EPA Director or states with

delegated UIC programs to require additional confining zones is important to

protect USDWs, especially in geologically marginal areas where GS may occur.

Waiver Process (IV.D.)

EPA is considering an alternative through a waiver process to allow GS injection

above and between USDWs under specific conditions that would provide

flexibility and allow for more site

‐ specific assessment. We do not support the

waiver process allowing injection above and between USDWs and alternatives that

will undermine long term protection of USDWs for the following reasons:

‐ The waiver process is a divergence from Class I and III requirements and would

allow for modifications and widespread use.

‐ GS in Oregon could be proposed in Columbia River Flood basalts not in saline

basins, or deep buried volcanic plains. Oregon currently has no exempt aquifers

‐ all aquifers statewide under the 1990 State Groundwater Act are considered tobe protected and potable.

‐ The waiver would place a greater burden on the state to administer this

program that is minimally supported by current EPA funding levels that are

directed towards Class I and II development.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that USDW protection is the highest priority and clarifies that the

purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS, where deployed, is conducted in a manner that

protects USDWs. Incentivizing the use of GS or other renewable energy resources and technologies is

outside the scope of this rulemaking and the UIC Program’s authority under the SDWA. EPA disagrees

that finalization of the GS rule is premature. For additional information regarding the data on which EPA

based the final GS rule, see the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns about USDW protection and clarifies that the mission of

the UIC Program is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Based on an evaluation of comments on the

proposed injection depth requirements, the waiver process discussed in the NODA and Request for

Comment, and concerns about USDW protection, EPA believes that there are situations where injection

into non

‐ USDW formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects

USDWs. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a

waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements. The waiver approach establishes requirements for

extensive site

‐ specific information related to injecting above or between USDWs that the owner or

operator must submit and the Director must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors, to ensure

that water supplies in the area and all USDWs are protected.

Furthermore, owners or operators granted injection depth waivers are subject to additional

requirements at §146.95(f), which include modified construction requirements and requirements to

monitor above and below the injection zone in order to ensure protection of USDWs underlying and

overlying the injection zone during both well operation and the post

‐ injection site care period.

EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of individual UIC programs.

Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are not required to provide

for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make this process available to

Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. This approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to

determine the appropriateness of allowing for waivers based on regional or state

‐ specific conditions,

such as the predominant geologic settings anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state

while ensuring maximum protection of USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers

represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do

not allow injection above or between USDWs if they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in

their State, territory, Tribe, or Region) and protective.Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27912 Letter Lines: 122 to 130

Comment Code: 5150 5.3. Comments on the Proposed AoR and Corrective Action Requirements

(146.84)

Comment: Area of Review

The proposed standards require modeling and tracking of the actual CO2 plume and

pressure front, with periodic re

‐ evaluation of the modeled behavior as

additional local experience is gained with a GS project. We acknowledge that

modeling is a good method of predicting the behavior of injected CO2 but should

not be relied upon without monitoring to verify the accuracy of the modeled

predictions. Modeling should be continually refined throughout the life of a

sequestration project.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27913 Letter Lines: 132 to 149

Comment Code: 5250 5.5. Comments on the Proposed Construction Requirements (146.86)

Comment: Well Standards

We believe the proposed well construction standards may be difficult or

impossible to meet in some geologic settings. The standards require a surface

casing installed to the lowermost USDW and cemented to the surface. In geologic

settings with bedrock and deep drinking water quality aquifers, it may be

difficult to set the surface casings this deep. Oregon's Columbia River basalts

may be as deep as 10,000 feet and much of that depth with drinking water quality

groundwater. The multiple flows and fractures in these beds make for difficult

drilling and frequently require setting intermediate casings. The standards

should allow a protective casing program that can be reliably installed in all

geologic settings. Deep aquifers may provide the most protective geologic

settings for CO2 injection and the well construction standards should not discourage

their use.

Down hole valves and other required downhole equipment may impact or prevent

certain monitoring techniques. It is important to require appropriate safeguardsbut leave some flexibility to use new technologies as new methods are developed.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27914 Letter Lines: 151 to 178

Comment Code: 5450 5.9. Comments on the Proposed Monitoring Requirements (146.90)

Comment: Monitoring

Direct monitoring of the formations immediately above the confining layer for a

geologic sequestration injection zone is an important requirement for the early

detection of unacceptable leakage or venting. The intent is to have no leakage

or venting occur. Monitoring wells installed into these formations should be

required for all projects. Geophysical methods and other indirect monitoring,

while useful, should not be allowed to substitute for all direct monitoring

above the confining layer.

The number of wells drilled through the confining layer into the injection zone

should be minimized as each new well represents a risk of establishing a pathway

for the migration of C02 or in

‐ situ fluids into shallower aquifers. Projects may

be able to get sufficient monitoring data from injection wells to minimize the

need for stand

‐ alone injection zone monitoring wells.

Decisions on the level of direct and indirect monitoring should be made on a

site

‐ by

‐ site basis, based upon the geologic characteristics. Some direct

monitoring must be required above the confining layer to confirm that indirect

monitoring is accurate.

Periodic corrosion and well integrity testing is important for all pollution

prevention programs. This well testing will help operators to focus maintenance

and repair activities on the wells that are degrading. It is better to prevent

leakage from a well breach than to fix the well after discovering that it has

leaked. We support adoption of requiring extensive corrosion controls with

monitoring until more data is available on how cement will react long term with

CO2.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside thescope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27915 Letter Lines: 180 to 187

Comment Code: 5650 5.13. Comments on the Proposed Emergency and Remedial Response

Requirements (146.94)

Comment: Remedial Action

Triggers should be established for when remedial action is required. The new

regulations should address this during the permitting process so the operator and

regulatory agency know what action is expected before impacts are observed.

Everyone will then understand what the threshold is and will help to prevent legal

efforts intended to delay the initiation of remedial actions when environmental

impacts have been observed.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27916 Letter Lines: 189 to 195

Comment Code: 5200 5.4. Comments on the Proposed Financial Responsibility Requirements (146.85)

Comment: Financial Assurance

Financial assurance accounts funded with real assets must be required as with

other environmental programs (e.g., RCRA). Financial tests and self insurance

are of no value if a company becomes financially insolvent. Financial assurance

is only of value if the assets remain in the account after a company's financial

demise.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27917 Letter Lines: 197 to 212

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule

Comment: Non

‐ CO2 Contaminants

The proposed standard would allow co

‐ disposal of imported non

‐ C02 waste

streams and non

‐ CO2 contaminants to be injected with the C02unless the

contaminants would make the CO2 a hazardous waste. Injected gases may not

qualify as a hazardous waste under current federal standards. It appears that

the proposed rules would allow a facility to import waste materials to add to

the CO2 and be injected as a cheap disposal option and we believe this should not

be allowed to happen. Oregon administrative rules would prohibit the injection

non

‐ CO2 contaminants if technology is available for their removal. Current state

rules also prohibit the use of underground injection for most waste disposal. An

alternative option would be to allow non

‐ CO2 contaminants only as specifically

addressed in a facility's permit and a statement that the non

‐ C02 contaminants

must be by

‐ products of the CO2 stream and may not be imported for disposal by

injection with the CO2. States should be able to adopt rules that are more

restrictive related to this issue.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27918 Letter Lines: 214 to 226

Comment Code: 5050 5.1. Comments on the Proposed Permit Application Information (146.82)

Comment: Rules Subpart H Criteria and Standards (CFR 146)

146.82 (b) Required permit Information

DEQ suggests a modification to this section stating "the map will also show

faults". Section 146.82(b) requires a map showing the injection wells and the

applicable area of review, while section 146.82 (c) to (d) describes "data

obtained during logging and testing of the well formation". The last sentence

in 146.82(b) should perhaps only state that information of public record is

required to be included on this map [section 146.82 (b)], and then note that the

requirements for maps and geological systems information in 146. 82 (c) to (d)are different. Derived data and supplemental data should also be discussed in

association with the site assessment.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27919 Letter Lines: 228 to 233

Comment Code: 5150 5.3. Comments on the Proposed AoR and Corrective Action Requirements

(146.84)

Comment: 146.84(a) Area of review and corrective action

This section states "that the area of review is based, in part, on computational

modeling." we would like to know how many types of modeling exist and what

the industrial standards or guidance is for the models. Relying on a computer

model without detailed geological data is not adequate.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27920 Letter Lines: 235 to 252

Comment Code: 5250 5.5. Comments on the Proposed Construction Requirements (146.86)

Comment: 146.86(b) (3) Well construction

We interpret this regulation to imply that wells can be grouted with cement in one

or more stages. The problem with cementing in stages is that it is possible to

have cold joints that may allow the movement of water or other fluids within the

annual space. We would prefer that the grout be placed in one continuous

operation without a significant interruption. By that we mean that the grout

should not be allowed to set up to a point that a cold joint would be created

when continuing to place grout after an interruption of over 72 hours if

Portland Cement is used, 48 hours if High Early Strength Type III Portland

Cement is used, or 6 hours if high Alumina Cement is used. Other interruption

times would vary depending upon the final set time of the proposed grout. We alsosuggest it be required for continuous cementing to take a minimum amount of

grout to complete the seal. For example, the rules should require that a

minimum of 120% to 130% of the estimated volume of sealing material be used when

sealing. While this would not guarantee an adequate seal, the chances of a

sufficient seal would be greater with the appropriate amount of grout. Too

little grout raises a red flag.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27921 Letter Lines: 254 to 261

Comment Code: 5300 5.6. Comments on the Proposed Logging, Sampling, and Testing Requirements

(146.87)

Comment: 146.87(b) Logging, sampling, and testing prior to operation

This regulation states that the Director may accept cores from nearby wells if the

owner/operator can demonstrate that core retrieval is not possible and that such

cores are representative of conditions of the well. We believe that cores from

nearby wells may not be indicative of the conditions at the well being

constructed and thus if possible a down hole video should be made to accurately

show the conditions at the well site.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27922 Letter Lines: 263 to 267

Comment Code: 5400 5.8. Comments on the Proposed MIT Requirements (146.89)

Comment: 146.89 Mechanical integrity

The term "significant" is often used when describing leaks. We propose there

should either be a definition of significant or the wells should be adequately

sealed so there are no leaks.Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27923 Letter Lines: 269 to 278

Comment Code: 5550 5.11. Comments on the Proposed Well Plugging Requirements (146.92)

Comment: 146.92 Well plugging

The proposed rules describe plugs as a way to abandon Class VI wells. Class VI

wells should be properly abandoned to prevent a health or environmental hazard

by completely filling them from the bottom up to the land surface with an

approved sealant (e.g., cement) to ensure these wells do not become a health

hazard or environmental concern. This assumes the well was properly constructed

in the first place and not grandfathered in as is proposed. We suggest that if a

well is found that is not properly constructed then another form of plugging may

be necessary to protect the groundwater resource.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 27924 Letter Lines: 280 to 284

Comment Code: 5600 5.12. Comments on the Proposed Post

‐ Injection Site Care Requirements (146.93)

Comment: 146.93 Post injection site care and closure

We suggest that post injection site care and closure data be required to be

posted on

‐ line. This does not address site reclamation beyond re

‐ vegetating the

pad, which currently is regulated in Oregon.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.Letter ID: 0366 Comment ID: 28563 Letter Lines: 67 to 73

Comment Code: 3100 3.1. Comments on Concerns About Injection Depth for Class VI Wells

Comment:

‐ There is an unknown level of risk associated with large geologic sequestration

projects. Regulations must set high standards for site selection, site

characterization and ongoing monitoring.

‐ The proposed rules and new data also do not adequately address other types of

hazards, such as those associated with hydro fracing and impacts to existing

faults.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that site selection, site characterization, and monitoring, along with

well construction, operation, and post

‐ injection site care are important to protect USDWs from

endangerment. EPA believes the final GS rule sets high standards for USDW protection that are tailored

to the unique challenges posed by GS.

For additional information on proper site characterization, pressure limits, and the use of hydraulic

fracturing at GS projects, see the preamble to the final rule and the responses to comments on the

proposed GS rule.