### 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.Texas Pipeline Association

Patrick J. Nugent

Executive Director



### Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460 October 14, 2009

Re: Texas Pipeline Association Comments on Notice of Data Availability on

Proposed Requirements for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Texas Pipeline Association ("TPA") previously submitted comments concerning the

above rulemaking by letter dated December 12, 2008. TPA now submits supplemental

comments in response to the August 31, 2009 Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") related to

this rulemaking. TP A is a trade association whose members gather, transport, and process

natural gas and liquids through intrastate pipelines in Texas.

1. TPA supports EPA's recognition that a case-by-case approach should be

used in drafting geologic sequestration regulations. We are encouraged that EPA recognizes

the benefits of "site-specific assessment" in this context. 74 Fed. Reg. 44810. In 

### our December

12, 2008 comments, TPA emphasized that no two sites are alike and that a regulatory approach

to geologic sequestration should be flexible so that site differences could be taken into account.

Accordingly, we agree with and support EPA's proposal to make determinations in this context

on a site-specific basis. We agree that regulators should have the flexibility to determine if

"injection at a particular site and depth is the appropriate approach." Id. We believe that such an

approach strikes the right balance by protecting underground sources of drinking water while

allowing maximum use of geologic sequestration.

We encourage EPA to apply the site-specific assessment concept to issues beyond depth

requirements. In our December 12, 2008 comments, we urged EPA to apply a site-specific,

case-by-case approach to the following additional regulatory requirements:

• the length ofthe post-closure period;

• the required level of testing and monitoring;

604 West 14th Street, Austin, Texas 78701

phone: (512) 478-2871 fax: (512) 473-8476 Email: lexaspipelineassocialion@yahoo.com

### • whether tracers would be required to detect leaks;

• whether down-hole automatic shut-off devices would be required;

• the required level of financial assurance; and

• requirements related to use of particular materials**~,** 

### corrosion-resistant materials vs.

conventional materials).

2. TPA supports 

### EPA's proposal for a waiver process whereby injection above

and between USDWs may be permitted. 

### TPA agrees with and supports EPA's proposal to

institute a waiver process concerning the depth at which geologic sequestration may occur. In

our December 12, 2008 comments, TP A noted that the use of geologic sequestration would be

unnecessarily hindered if EPA instituted an arbitrary, across-the-board prohibition on injection

above a underground source of drinking water ("USDW"). TPA pointed out that, in some

circumstances, it could be appropriate to allow injection above a USDW

- for example, where

the injection zone was far above a USDW and the characteristics of the intervening space

prevented migration between the injection zone and the USDW. We also pointed out that carbon

dioxide 

### has been injected above the lowermost USDW without incident for decades in Texas, in

connection with enhanced oil and gas recovery efforts.

Accordingly, we are encouraged by the waiver proposal contained in the NODA. TPA

believes that a site-specific, case-by-case approach should be used in determining the proper depth for carbon injection. In 

### some cases it might be inappropriate to allow injection above a

USDW, but in other cases injection above a USDW would be safe and would result in

sequestration of a substantial amount of GHG that might otherwise be emitted into the

atmosphere. The waiver proposal set forth in the NODA would enable a thorough and

scientifically based assessment of the particular situation at issue. We support this approach and

we encourage EPA to extend it to additional areas of the proposed rules.

3. The rule's financial assurance requirements are already too stringent and

should not be made even more onerous. 

### In our December 12, 2008 comments, TPA urged

EPA to avoid imposition of unduly burdensome fmancial assurance requirements upon those

who are engaged in carbon sequestration. We stated our belief that the requirement of unduly

lengthy financial assurance commitments might unnecessarily hinder development and

implementation of sequestration projects, and we urged that financial assurance requirements be

assessed on a site-specific, case-by-case basis. We also urged EPA to consider alternative

arrangements such as group stewardship or designated management entities for the post-closure

period.

Given our views as to the possible negative impact that unduly burdensome financial

assurance requirements might have on companies' willingness to engage in geologic

sequestration, we are troubled by the NODA's statement that waiver participants would be

required to supplement standard Class VI permit information with a demonstration of "sufficient,

additional fmancial responsibility to address any potential contamination of USDWs above or

below the injection zone." 74 Fed. Reg. 44811 (emphasis added). As we believe that the

### financial assurance requirements set forth in the initial notice of rulemaking are already too

burdensome, we oppose imposition of any additional requirements in this area. We again urge

EPA to ensure that fmancial assurance requirements are imposed in a manner that does not create

an unnecessary burden on program participants. Such requirements should 

### be imposed only after

an assessment of the specific conditions at each particular site. We believe that imposition of

any additional requirements would be counterproductive, because it 

### would discourage the use of

geologic sequestration while not adding any real benefit to the public.

4. EPA should not go beyond the Safe Drinking Water Act in the development

of geologic sequestration regulations. TPA is concerned about the NODA's statement that

EPA is considering an expanded regulatory framework that might go beyond the Safe Drinking

Water Act ("SDWA") and could include regulations pursuant to the Clean Air 

### Act, the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). 74 Fed. Reg. 44805.

Carbon dioxide injectate should be categorized as a commodity, not a waste or pollutant.

Sequestered carbon dioxide is expected to generate a credit in any future carbon credit scheme.

Characterization of the carbon dioxide stream as a waste or pollutant, and imposition of

regulations under the Clean Air Act, RCRA or CERCLA, would be viewed as exposing industry

participants to severe and open-ended liability and, as such, would dramatically reduce the

number of companies willing to engage in geologic sequestration under the new regulatory

scheme. In 

### this as in all areas of the proposed rules, EPA should bear in mind that the benefits

associated with geologic sequestration will not be realized if unnecessarily burdensome

regulations and financial liability risks are imposed upon those who engage in geologic

sequestration.

Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to 

### share our views on this rulemaking. We believe that

geologic sequestration will 

### be a useful tool in the effort to address climate change.

# S~Y'j 

# . j;

,

# t~t:J;J~~

Executive DIrectorLetter ID: 0340

Commenter: Patrick J. Nugent

Organization: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA)

Letter ID: 0340 Comment ID: 28013 Letter Lines: 39 to 50

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: 1. TPA supports EPA's recognition that a case

‐ by

‐ case approach should be used in

drafting geologic sequestration regulations. We are encouraged that EPA

recognizes the benefits of "site

‐ specific assessment" in this context. 74 Fed.

Reg. 44810. In our December 12, 2008 comments, TPA emphasized that no two sites

are alike and that a regulatory approach to geologic sequestration should be

flexible so that site differences could be taken into account. Accordingly, we

agree with and support EPA's proposal to make determinations in this context on

a site

‐ specific basis. We agree that regulators should have the flexibility to

determine if "injection at a particular site and depth is the appropriate

approach." Id. We believe that such an approach strikes the right balance by

protecting underground sources of drinking water while allowing maximum use

of geologic sequestration. We encourage EPA to apply the site

‐ specific assessment

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site

‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some 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 and operators can seek a waiver of

the Class VI injection depth requirements. EPA agrees that a flexible, site

‐ specific approach to waiver

determinations (and all Class VI permitting decisions) is appropriate. Site

‐ specific demonstrations of

injection zone integrity along with proper well construction, operation, monitoring, and post closure site

care are the best way to ensure USDW safety while allowing flexibility for GS above or between USDWs.

EPA believes that the additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells

granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements will provide additional considerations for the

owner or operator and Director when permitting such wells to ensure protection of all USDWs.

The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to concerns about local and regional geologic

storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more

site

‐ specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different

formation types; 4) allows for injection of CO2 for GS into non

‐ USDWs above and/or between USDWswhen appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to

concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA's approach to addressing injection

depth variability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource

availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to

supply drinking water needs.

Letter ID: 0340 Comment ID: 28014 Letter Lines: 50 to 66

Comment Code: 5000 5. Comments on the Proposed Rule (out of NODA Scope)

Comment: of geologic sequestration. We encourage EPA to apply the site

‐ specific assessment

concept to issues beyond depth requirements. In our December 12, 2008 comments,

we urged EPA to apply a site

‐ specific, case

‐ by

‐ case approach to the following

additional regulatory requirements:

‐ the length of the post

‐ closure period;

‐ the required level of testing and monitoring;

‐ whether tracers would be required to detect leaks;

‐ whether down

‐ hole automatic shut

‐ off devices would be required;

‐ the required level of financial assurance; and

‐ requirements related to use of particular materials ~, corrosion

‐ resistant

materials vs. conventional materials).

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: 0340 Comment ID: 28015 Letter Lines: 68 to 89

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: 2. TPA supports EPA's proposal for a waiver process whereby injection above and

between USDWs may be permitted. TPA agrees with and supports EPA's proposal to

institute a waiver process concerning the depth at which geologic sequestrationmay occur. In our December 12, 2008 comments, TPA noted that the use of geologic

sequestration would be unnecessarily hindered if EPA instituted an arbitrary,

across

‐ the

‐ board prohibition on injection above a underground source of drinking

water ("USDW"). TPA pointed out that, in some circumstances, it could be

appropriate to allow injection above a USDW

‐ for example, where the injection

zone was far above a USDW and the characteristics of the intervening space

prevented migration between the injection zone and the USDW. We also pointed out

that carbon dioxide has been injected above the lowermost USDW without incident

for decades in Texas, in connection with enhanced oil and gas recovery efforts.

Accordingly, we are encouraged by the waiver proposal contained in the NODA. TPA

believes that a site

‐ specific, case

‐ by

‐ case approach should be used in

determining the proper depth for carbon injection. In some cases it might be

inappropriate to allow injection above a USDW, but in other cases injection

above a USDW would be safe and would result in sequestration of a substantial

amount of GHG that might otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere. The waiver

proposal set forth in the NODA would enable a thorough and scientifically based

assessment of the particular situation at issue. We support this approach and we

encourage EPA to extend it to additional areas ofthe proposed rules.

Individual Response: The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators

can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements. EPA agrees that a flexible, site

‐ specific

approach to waiver determinations (and all Class VI permitting decisions) is appropriate. Site

‐ specific

demonstrations of injection zone integrity along with proper well construction, operation, monitoring,

and post closure site care are the best way to ensure USDW safety while allowing flexibility for GS above

or between USDWs. EPA believes that the additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of

Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements will provide additional

considerations for the owner or operator and Director when permitting such wells to ensure protection

of all USDWs.

The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to concerns about local and regional geologic

storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more

site

‐ specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different

formation types; 4) allows for injection of CO2 for GS into non

‐ USDWs above and/or between USDWs

when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to

concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA's approach to addressing injection

depth variability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource

availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to

supply drinking water needs.Letter ID: 0340 Comment ID: 28016 Letter Lines: 91 to 117

Comment Code: 3340 3.3.4. Financial Responsibility

Comment: 3. The rule's financial assurance requirements are already too stringent and

should not be made even more onerous. In our December 12, 2008 comments, TPA

urged EPA to avoid imposition of unduly burdensome financial assurance

requirements upon those who are engaged in carbon sequestration. We stated our

belief that the requirement of unduly lengthy financial assurance commitments

might unnecessarily hinder development and implementation of sequestration

projects, and we urged that financial assurance requirements be assessed on a

site

‐ specific, case

‐ by

‐ case basis. We also urged EPA to consider alternative

arrangements such as group stewardship or designated management entities for the

post

‐ closure period.

Given our views as to the possible negative impact that unduly burdensome

financial assurance requirements might have on companies' willingness to engage

in geologic sequestration, we are troubled by the NODA's statement that waiver

participants would be required to supplement standard Class VI permit

information with a demonstration of "sufficient, additional fmancial

responsibility to address any potential contamination of USDWs above or below

the injection zone." 74 Fed. Reg. 44811 (emphasis added). As we believe that the

financial assurance requirements set forth in the initial notice of rulemaking

are already too burdensome, we oppose imposition of any additional requirements

in this area. We again urge EPA to ensure that financial assurance requirements

are imposed in a manner that does not create an unnecessary burden on program

participants. Such requirements should be imposed only after an assessment of

the specific conditions at each particular site. We believe that imposition of

any additional requirements would be counterproductive, because it would

discourage the use of geologic sequestration while not adding any real benefit

to the public.

Individual Response: The requirements at §146.95 for owners and operators seeking injection depth

waivers are intended to add to and modify the requirements that all GS well owners or operators must

meet, including those for financial responsibility, to ensure that the proposed site is evaluated in the

context of the presence of USDWs above and below the injection zone. For additional information on

financial responsibility for GS projects, see the preamble to the final rule and the responses to

comments on the proposed GS rule.

EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility to assist owners or operators in evaluating the

requirements of §146.85 and to assist Directors in evaluating financial responsibility demonstrations.

EPA is also developing guidance on the injection depth waiver process. The guidance describes therecommended approach an owner or operator may follow when submitting a waiver application,

processing waiver applications by the UIC and PWSS Program Directors. These guidances will be

available on EPA’s website at water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0340 Comment ID: 28017 Letter Lines: 119 to 136

Comment Code: 1100 1.1 Comments on the Comprehensive Approach

Comment: 4. EPA should not go beyond the Safe Drinking Water Act in the development of

geologic sequestration regulations. TPA is concerned about the NODA's statement

that EPA is considering an expanded regulatory framework that might go beyond

the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") and could include regulations pursuant to

the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

("CERCLA"). 74 Fed. Reg. 44805. Carbon dioxide injectate should be categorized

as a commodity, not a waste or pollutant. Sequestered carbon dioxide is expected

to generate a credit in any future carbon credit scheme. Characterization of the

carbon dioxide stream as a waste or pollutant, and imposition of regulations

under the Clean Air Act, RCRA or CERCLA, would be viewed as exposing industry

participants to severe and open

‐ ended liability and, as such, would dramatically

reduce the number of companies willing to engage in geologic sequestration under

the new regulatory scheme. In this as in all areas of the proposed rules, EPA

should bear in mind that the benefits associated with geologic sequestration

will not be realized if unnecessarily burdensome regulations and financial

liability risks are imposed upon those who engage in geologic sequestration.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that regulatory clarity is essential for enabling GS to move

forward in a manner that protects human health and the environment. In developing the final GS rule,

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,

Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land

Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal

environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will

continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies

for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final

GS rule.Regarding RCRA, the final GS rule requires owners or operators to characterize their CO2 stream as part

of their permit application process to determine whether the injectate is a RCRA hazardous waste. If the

CO2 stream is determined to be a hazardous waste, injection may only occur in a Class I hazardous

waste injection well. Additionally, EPA clarifies that a determination as to whether the presence of

hazardous substances in CO2 results in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depends entirely on

the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil

or ground water). EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant

or a commodity. For additional information, see the preamble to the final rule and the responses to

comments on the proposed GS rule.

The Agency further clarifies that the GS rule does not address issues related to carbon crediting. The

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for CO2 Injection and Geologic Sequestration (40 CFR 98), issued under

the authority of the CAA in a separate rulemaking action requires that sources above certain threshold

emission levels monitor and report their emissions. In a separate action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part

98, which provides the regulatory framework for the GHG Reporting Program, to add reporting

requirements covering facilities that conduct GS (in subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO2

underground (subpart UU). This data will inform Agency policy decisions under CAA related to the use of

CCS for mitigating GHG emissions.