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.11/17/0 8 DRAFT

1 Paul R. Pike

Environmental Services 314.554.2388 (Phone) 314.554.4182 (Facsimile) prpike@ameren.com

December 23, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency , Mailcode: 2822T

1200 Penn sy lvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Submitted on

- line: www.regulations.gov

Docket No. No. EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

Re: Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells

, 73 Fed. Reg. 43 492 (July 25, 2008)

To whom it may concern:

Ameren Corporation appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency ’s (“EPA”) Proposal to establish a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration (“GS”) of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ” ) under the Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) Program pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"). 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008).

Ameren Corporation (or Ameren) is based in St. Louis, MO, and through its operating companies serves 2.4 mil lion electric and nearl y o ne million natural gas customers across a 64,000

- square

- mile area in I llinois and Missouri. Ameren companies’ net generating capacity is more than 16,400 megawatts. Our power plants use a variety of fuels to generate electricit y

— principally coal, nuclear, hy dro and natural gas. In 2007, coal

- fired generation accounted for 84 percent of our total electric generation; 12 percent came from the compan y’ s single

- unit nuclear plant; 2 percent from natural gas

- fired units; and 2 percen t from h ydroelectric plants.

The Ameren famil y of companies operates through multiple subsidiaries in different regulatory environments. In Missouri, Ameren’s utility subsidiary, AmerenUE, generates electricity, delivers natural gas and electricity and is regulated by a state

- appointed commission. Ameren is the parent compan y t o three Illinois utilities (collectively referred to as the Ameren Illinois Utilities) which deliver natural gas and electricity and are regulated b y a state

- appointed

commission. Ameren also owns a number of non

- rate

- regulated subsidiaries, including AmerenEnergy Resources, which is the holding company for some of Ameren’s non

- rate

regulated power marketing and generating companies. Regulation of GS under the UI C program

will ha ve a direct impact on Ameren, particularl y our fossil

- fired facilities involved in t he11/17/0 8 DRAFT

2 production of electricity and we ha ve a substantial interest in EPA's development of a realistic

and cost

- effective UIC program for Class VI CO 2 GS wells

Ameren is a me mber of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (“U SW AG” )

, the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI” )

, and the Electric Power Research Institute (“EPRI)”. W e endorse the comments filed by USWAG , EEI, and E PR I. In addition, I provided oral and written testimon y on behalf of USWAG at EPA’s October 2 , 2008, public hearing on the proposed rules

Flexible Regulatory Scheme

Ameren generally supports the creation of Class VI, a new class of injection wells for CO 2 injection and storage. We also appreciate the attem pt that EPA has taken to bring "certaint y" and "transparency " to the future CO 2 underground injection regulatory regime. However , it is imperative that the Final Rule be flexible enough to deal with the current investigative phase and when large

- scale c ommercial operations are in place. We recognize that GS has significant potential to be a major portion of an y future CO2 emission reduction scheme, but that can onl y occur if the regulations adapt to the actual hazard posed by the technology which may no t be fully understood until some time in the future.

Clearly the Agency understands the need for flexibility by allowing a Director to provide guidance on regulatory compliance. We understand that this can allow the regulatory framework to evolve; howeve r, there also needs to be some definition and limits to that discretion so that the public and regulated community can provide comments on that guidance. This means that technical and financial aspects are considered in the development of guidance.

We also recognize that the underl yi ng basis for these regulations is the protection of underground sources of drinking water (“USDWs”) , but we urges EPA to avoid blanket prohibitions or arbitrary absolutes in the Final Rule. It is impossible to know what met hods or technology will be developed for injection and long

- term storage of CO 2 and the A gency should not prematurel y preclude the use of specific ty pes of sites or methods for Class VI CO 2 injection. The Final Rule

should allow a range of injection sites and methods, provided that the Owner or Operator can show that the injection and storage will be protective of USDWs.

State Issues

We believe that the Final Rule should include a process that will allow delegation as well as encourage adoption and imple mentation of the program by states. If there is to be a smooth implementation of the Class VI wells, it will mean working closel y with State regulators who are familiar local concerns and can work with the regulated community to address those specific

con cerns. Associated with the State primacy issue is how to address cross

- state boundaries. We feel that some injection activities will cross State boundaries and that the State in which the

wellhead is located should consult and coordinate with the other i mpacted State(s). Duel or duplicative regulatory sy stems will only unnecessarily burden potential injection projects limiting the value of this overall program. A final aspect for the states will be the Agency’s ability to provide funding to the states t o aid them in implementing the program. Some States11/17/0 8 DRAFT

3 will not have the adequate expertise or manpower to respond to the potential of this program and will need assistance to ensure that adequate staff is available.

Grandfathering

Ameren and man y other co mpanies a re participating in the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships as well as individual projects and believe that it is important that wells developed solely for the purpose of demonstrating the viability of CO2 sequestration should be grandf athered into the Class VI program. This means that regardless of the original permitting status of the well, it can be eventuall y t ransition to Class VI . These “demonstration” wells may have included requirements valuable to understand the process, but u nnecessary for a routinel y operated facility and those could be dropped in the transition. I f necessary , the Director could identify wh y continued operation of the well necessitates additional requirements which the permitee would be allowed the opportun ity to respond.

Siting

Ameren understands that EPA must consider the potential impact of CO 2 GS projects on USDWs

and other pre

- existing subsurface activities ( e.g. , natural gas storage operations). However, we

believe that at this point, the impositi on of prohibition on certain sites will limit the benefits of this program. The important criteria is protecting USDWs and meet ing other applicable

conditions for Class VI CO 2 GS wells. As stated earlier, CO 2 GS is still being developed for

commercial sc ale use and methods may be developed to address all issues that would otherwise result in impacts on other subsurface activities. This means that there should not be a prohibition on injection of CO 2 into coal seams (whether above or below the lowermost U SDW) or into other formations such as basalts, salt domes, or shales. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43503.

A related subject is the requirement to identif y and characteriz e additional confining and containment zones above the primary ( i.e. , lowermost) confining zone that could further impede vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation

– in effect, a "secondary containment" requirement

. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43505

- 06. We believe that only in the most unusual situations would circumstances warrant the requir ement of an additional protective layer and oppose the

inclusion of a "secondary containment" requirement.

RCRA Issues

Ameren is concerned that the CO 2 stream being regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) may be wrongl y classified under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)

. I t should be unnecessary to label CO 2 a waste or a commodity for purposes of proposing and implementing UIC regulations for its injection and storage, because sites should be developed based on site

- specifi c conditions. However, the preamble includes a discussion of whether injected CO 2 may be a hazardous waste, thus perhaps implying the assumption that CO 2 is a solid waste to begin with. The preamble states:

“ Because the t ypes of impurities and their co ncentrations in the CO 2 stream are likel y t o

vary by facility , coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal11/17/0 8 DRAFT

4 technologies, EPA cannot make a categorical determination as to whether injected CO 2 is

hazardous under RCRA. ” 73 Fed. Reg. a t 43503

First, we do not believe that it is the within the jurisdiction of the SDWA to evaluate the nature of a material, or if a waste determine whether it is hazardous or not. Secondly if we a ssum e , for purposes of argument, that CO 2 is “discarded” an d exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic when injected for long

- term sequestration, there are compelling policy reasons to exclude such activities from RCRA regulation. Subjecting these injection operations to regulation under a

Class I UI C hazardous w aste injection permit could expose all other waste management units at the facility , including units that are in no way related to the injec tion operations, to al l of RCRA’s Subtitle C corrective action program. This is because a Class I UIC hazardous was te injection permit is classified as a RCRA “permit by rule” under RCRA’s hazardous waste permit

program. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 270.1(c)(1)(i) and 270.64. Facilities that have obtained a RCRA permit by rule for the operation of a Class I UIC hazardous waste i njection well are potentiall y subject to the full scope of RCRA’s corrective action program for all solid waste management units located at the facility

. See EPA RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Summary , "Corrective Action for UIC Wells," 9502.1986(07) (Apr il 1986). The specter of RCRA corrective action is a significant economic and practical obstacle for any facility considering whether to seek a permit for a new Class VI well, as facilit y

- wide RCRA corrective action is an administratively complex

and exce edingl y ex pensive undertaking.

The imposition of facility

- wide RCRA corrective action is unwarranted because an y well receiving a permit under the UI C Program for CO 2 GS will be, by definition, protective of USDWs. EPA’s RCRA program has established a le gall y s ound process, referred to as "contingent management," for the exclusion of materials from hazardous waste regulation when such materials are already subject to an alternate regulatory regime that ensures the wastes are managed in an environmentally protective manner. As discussed below, where the potential for mismanagement of a waste is alread y adequatel y a ddressed b y another regulatory regime

– as would be the case with the injection of CO 2 under the Class VI UI C program

– regulation of such

mater ials under the RCRA’s hazardous waste program is duplicative and unwarranted. EPA has

successfull y emplo yed the contingent management concept in various contexts where the Agency determined that other regulatory regimes adequatel y addressed an y potential mismanagement scenarios related to certain materials; examples include regulation of used oil, mixed radioactive/hazardous waste, and military munitions.

The D.C. Circuit has reviewed EPA's legal theory underly ing the contingent management concept and f

ound it to be a "permissible construction of the statute"

– namely , that the statutory definition of "hazardous waste" is predicated upon the risks posed by a solid waste when

" improperly " managed; therefore, "where a waste might pose a hazard only under l imited management scenarios, and other regulatory programs already address such scenarios, EPA is

not required to classify a waste as hazardous waste subject to regulation under [RCRA] Subtitle

C." Military Toxics Project v. EPA , 146 F.3d 948, 958 (D.C. Cir 1998) (emphasis added).

Even if such operations were deemed subject to RCRA regulation, including a RCRA permit b y rule, EPA could

– and should

– establish a conditional exclusion from RCRA regulation for CO 2 GS operations. Such an exclusion would be legally justified, consistent with the Agency 's past11/17/0 8 DRAFT

5 promulgation of conditional exclusion rules, and would make sound policy sense b y removing a potentially significant regulatory barrier to the commercial development of CO 2 GS operations.

Modeling

Ame ren believes that an y model used in evaluating Class VI CO 2 GS project is acceptable provided that it is based on accepted science and ha s been validated, and as long as we if are using a pr oprietary model disclose, as necessary , the code assumptions, rele vant equati ons, and

scientific basis of t h e model.

Area of Review and Corrective Action

Ameren w il l be require d to invest a significant amount of time and resources in the initial

delineation of the Area of Review (“ AoR ”), but we believe that requir ing AoR reevaluations

every ten years or at an y other fixed period is unnecessary

. A performance

- based approach

would be more appropriate , with reevaluation required upon occurrence of some triggering event; one example of a triggering event could be a sign ificant deviation from previously modeled scenarios, provided that the level of deviation that would require reevaluation is agreed to be the permitee and the regulating agency in the permitting process

.

We believe that use of the phrase “corrective act ion” to describe well plugging and repair risks confusion with the concept of corrective action under either RCRA or CERCL A. This potential

confusion can lead to unwarranted negative associations with the phrase “corrective action,” and

we would suggest abandon ing this phrase and instead use a phrase such as “well plugging and repair.” We would then also support a phased approach to well plugging and repair (“corrective action”) for CO 2 GS wells as contemplated in the Proposal and it should be available to all Owners or Operators of CO 2 GS wells rather than be available onl y at the discretion of the

Director . 73 Fed. Reg. at 43507

- 08.

A CO 2 GS site may have an extensive AoR and requiring well plugging and repair to be complete for all wells in a CO 2 G S AoR prior to commencement of the injection project would be unnecessary , and unrealistic. We instead support an approach that would require the Owner or Operator of a Class VI well to perform pre

- injection well plugging and repair on only those

wells wi thin the portion of the AoR that would be intersected b y t he CO 2 plume or pressure front during the initial years of injection. Well plugging and repair for the rest of the AoR should be allowed to take place as the injection project progresses, ensuring that, eventually , “all wells in the AoR that need corrective action [well plugging and repair] eventually receive it.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 43508.

Injection Well Operating Requirements

Ameren supports allow ing injection between and/or above the lowermost USD W, provided that

the Class VI wells can be show n that their operations will be protective of USDWs. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. This could be particularly important in areas of the country with deep USDWs, where an absolute requirement that Class VI wells be constructed beneath the lowermost USDW could render the program impractical. We also support this approach in areas where it can be11/17/0 8 DRAFT

6 show n that geologic conditions would prevent fluid movement into adjacent USDWs. Id

. Therefore, we oppose an absolute pro hibition on use of exempt aquifers for Class VI injection; again us e of exempt aquifers c ould be permitted where the specific aquifer exemption criteria are

satisfied. Id

.

While hy draulic fracturing is not appropriate in all geologic settings, it should be an available option

. For years, EOR operations have employed hydraulic fracturing to enlarge fractures in rock; hy draulic fracturing has proven an effective way to create permeability and increase well capacity with minimal risk to USDWs. T his techni que has been used for many years, and we

believe that regulatory protocols could be established to ensure safe and effective h ydraulic fracturing where appropriate for Class VI CO 2 GS operations. Again, hy draulic fracturing would only be used when the Own er or Operator can demonstrate that such fract uring will not jeopardize USDWs or other important subsurface activities

Post

- Injection Site Care

The imposition of a fifty

- ye ar default fixed timeframe for the post

- injection site care period will discourage Ameren from seeking to develop CO 2 GS wells. W e agree with EPA that it is likely

“that the actual time for CO 2 plume stabilization ... will be very site specific , being influenced b y geologic factors such as formation permeability, geochemistry, and the de gree of capillary trapping.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 43519. (emphasis added). We believe that there is no single time period that would appl y t o every CO 2 GS site across the board, due to the greatl y varied

characteristics and needs of different CO 2 GS project s, application of a performance

- based standard which is highl y s ite

- specific, rather than a default time period, is an appropriate approach to the post

- injection site care requirements. T ailoring requirements to a given site , a performance

- based standard c ould also encourage the development of methods and technology that would achieve long

- term protection of USDWs.

Public Participation

Ameren agrees that public participation is an important part of an y C O 2 GS project , but we urge

EPA to require publ ic participation after an application has been deemed complete but before it has been approved

. We believe that the initial application will require some degree of interaction between an Agency and the permitee. Therefore, the best time to involve the p ublic

is when basic information needs have been fulfilled and there is a belief that the project can move proceed to permitting. The public can then voice their concerns or support based on the best available information on a project.

Ameren appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important rule and would welcome the opportunity to work further with the Agency . Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerel y,

Paul R. Pike Strategic Analyst

- Environmental ServicesLetter ID: 0198

Commenter: Paul Pike Organization: Ameren Corporation

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23936 Letter Lines: 47 to 50

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS

Comment: Regulation of GS under the UIC program will have a direct impact on Ameren, particularly our fossil-fired faciliti es involved in the production of electricity and we have a substantial interest in EPA's development of a realistic and cost-effective UIC progr am for Class VI CO2 GS wells

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA clar ifies that the GS rule does not require any facilities to capt ure and/or sequester CO2. Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23937 Letter Lines: 52 to 56

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: Ameren is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG"), the Edison Electric Institute ("EEI"), and th e Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI)". We endorse the comments filed by USWAG, EEI, and EPRI. In addition, I provided oral and written testimony on behalf of USWAG at EPA’s October 2, 2008, public hearing on the proposed rules

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment, USWAG’s comment, EEI’s comment, and EPRI’s comment for

further details. For additional information on EP A's final regulatory a pproach, please see the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23938 Letter Lines: 58 to 85

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards)

Comment: FLEXIBLE REGULATORY SCHEME

Ameren generally supports the creation of Class VI, a new class of injection wells for CO2 injection and storage. We also appreciate the attempt that EPA has taken to bring "certainty" and "trans parency" to the future CO2 underground injection regulatory regime. However, it is imperative that the Final Rule be flexible enough to deal w ith the current inve stigative phase and when large1scale commercial operations are in place. We recognize that GS has significant potential to be a major portion of any fu ture CO2 emission reduction scheme, but that can only occur if the regulations ad apt to the actual haza rd posed by the technology which may not be fully underst ood until some time in the future.

Clearly the Agency understands the need for flexibility by allowing a Director to provide guidance on regulatory compliance. We understand that this can allow the regulatory framework to evolve; however, there also needs to be some

definition and limits to that discretion so that the public and regulated community can provide comments on that guid ance. This means that technical and financial aspects are considered in the development of guidance.

We also recognize that the underlying basis for these regulations is the protection of underground sources of drinki ng water ("USDWs"), but we urges EPA to avoid blanket prohibitions or arbitrary absolutes in the Final Rule. It is impossible to know what methods or tec hnology will be developed for injection and long-term storage of CO2 and the Agen cy should not prematur ely preclude the use of specific types of sites or methods for Class VI CO2 injection. The Final Rule should allow a range of injection sites and methods, provided that the Owner or Operator can show that the injection and storage will be protective of

USDWs.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

EPA is developing guidances for States that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement authority (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA,

as well as the technical and administrative issu es on developing GS regul ations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The gui dance will describe areas of

Directorial discretion and consid erations for how that discre tion would be exercised. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs fr om endangerment. Encouraging investment in CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23939 Letter Lines: 87 to 93

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

2Comment: STATE ISSUES

We believe that the Final Rule shoul d include a process that will allow delegation as well as encourage adoption and implementation of the program by states. If there is to be a smooth impl ementation of the Class VI wells, it will mean working closely with State regul ators who are familiar local concerns and can work with the regulated community to address those specific concerns.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settin gs in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that 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.

The Agency believes that it is important for stat es to use their unique e fficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important tec hnology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

Given the potential for CCS (encompassing captur e, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI we lls independently of other well classes can help foster effec tive management of CCS. EPA belie ves that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for impl ementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities unde r SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI we lls under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve an cillary activities (e.g., pi peline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level ( but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23940 Letter Lines: 94 to 99

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

Comment: Associated with the Stat e primacy issue is how to address cross-state boundaries. We feel that some injecti on activities will cro ss State boundaries

and that the State in which the well head is located should consult and

3coordinate with the other impacted St ate(s). Duel or dup licative regulatory systems will only unnecessarily burden pot ential injection projects limiting the value of this overall program. A final aspect for the states will be the

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that CO2 plumes may cross state or ev en international boundaries and encourages cooperation and coor dination among permitting authorities. The final Class VI GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the ow ner or operator to identi fy all State, Tribal,

and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application and ensure that they are involve d in any necessary processes; th is new requirement was added to the final rule at §146.82(b). The Agency encourag es transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourag e safe, protective projects.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI permit would be issued by the permitting authority in the state

where the wellhead is located.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23941 Letter Lines: 99 to 103

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

Comment: value of this overall program. A final aspect for the states will be the Agency’s ability to provide funding to th e states to aid them in implementing the program. Some States will not have th e adequate expertise or manpower to respond to the potential of this program a nd will need assistance to ensure that adequate staff is available.

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: 0198 Comment ID: 23942 Letter Lines: 105 to 117

Comment Code: 2066 1.5.3.3 Grandfathering construction of Class V wells (seeking comment)

Comment: GRANDFATHERING

4Ameren and many other companies are par ticipating in the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships as well as indivi dual projects and be lieve that it is important that wells developed solely for the purpose of de monstrating the viability of CO2 sequestration should be grandfathered into the Class VI program. This means that regardless of the original permitting status of the well, it can be eventually transition to Class VI. These "demonstration" wells may have included requirements valuable to understand the process, but unnecessary for a routinely operated facili ty and those could be dropped in the transition. If necessary, the Director could identify why continued operation of the well necessitates additional requirements which the permitee would be allowed the opportunity to respond.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that, when the Regiona l Carbon Sequestration Partnership projects are no longer of an expe rimental nature, they should be re-permitted as Class VI wells and subject to the Class VI requirements if th ey are to be used for commercial-scale GS.

EPA is providing for the construction of Cla ss V experimental technology wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provid ed the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet th e requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA

understands based on reviews of several Class V pilot project permits, that many Class V experimental technology wells, including those used in the RCSP projects, are specifically designed for injection of CO2 and are being built to Class I non-hazardous well specifications, which should facilitate re-permitting as Class VI wells.

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of th e Class V experimental technology well classification to clarify perm itting for Class V wells. This addendum will address shifting of Class V experi mental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V experimental technology well s ubclass for research a nd testing of new GS technologies.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23943 Letter Lines: 119 to 131

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types

Comment: SITING

Ameren understands that EPA must consid er the potential impact of CO2 GS projects on USDWs and other pre-existi ng subsurface activities (e.g., natural gas storage operations). However, we beli eve that at this point, the imposition of prohibition on certain sites will lim it the benefits of this program. The important criteria is protec ting USDWs and meeting othe r applicable conditions

for Class VI CO2 GS wells. As stated ear lier, CO2 GS is still being developed for commercial scale use and methods may be developed to address all issues that would otherwise result in impacts on other subsurface activities. This means

5that there should not be a prohibition on injection of CO2 into coal seams (whether above or below the lowermost USDW) or into other formations such as basalts, salt domes, or sh ales. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43503.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS into unmineable coal seams has the potential to allow sequestration while ensuring USDW protection fro m endangerment, as described by commenters citing the process of enhanced methane recovery. The final GS rule does not preclude injection into unmineable coal seams, or into basalts, salt domes, or shales, provid ed owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Agency clarifies that owners or operators of Class VI wells used for injecting CO2 into these formation types are subject to the same site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site care and site closure requi rements that are required of projects injecting into other formation types.

EPA acknowledges that there are un knowns associated with GS, par ticularly regarding GS into formations such as coal seams, basalts, salt dom es, or shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. For this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injecti on. EPA will collect and review proj ect data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to determine 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 clarifies that the final rule requires that injection for GS be into non-USDWs below the lowermost USDW; however, owners or operators may apply for a waiver from this requirement, as described in §146.95. For more information, see the discussion of waivers in the preamble to

the final rule.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23944 Letter Lines: 133 to 139

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones (seeking comment)

Comment: A related subject is the requirement to identify and characterize additional confining and containment zones above th e primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone that could further impede vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation - in effect, a "secondary cont ainment" requirement. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43505-06. We believe that only in the most unusual situations would circumstances warrant the requirement of an additional protective layer and oppose the inclusion of a "secondary containment" requirement.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the Class VI requir ements, including the level of site characterization required under §§146.82 and 146.83, appropria tely address the unique challenges posed by large-scale GS including large injection vol umes, the relative buoyancy of

6CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, th e potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geolog ic formations. EPA acknowledges that such additional zones may not be needed in all circumst ances, and clarifies that this requirement is at the Director's discretion, based on his or her understanding of a particular site. The Agency believes that in some geologic settings, the presence and identification of additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection. These formations could further impede vertical fluid movement, allow for pressure dissipation, and provide additiona l sites for monitoring, mitigation, and remediation, while also affording the greatest protection of USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23945 Letter Lines: 141 to 210

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

Comment: RCRA Issues

Ameren is concerned that the CO2 stream being regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") may be wrongly classi fied under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). It should be unn ecessary to label CO2 a waste or a commodity for purposes of proposing and implementing UIC regulations for its injection and storage, becau se sites should be develope d based on site-specific conditions. However, the preamble includes a discussion of whet her injected CO2 may be a hazardous waste, thus perhaps implying the assumption that CO2 is a solid waste to begin with . The preamble states:

"Because the types of impurities and th eir concentrations in the CO2 stream are likely to vary by facilit y, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal te chnologies, EPA cannot make a categorical determination as to whet her injected CO2 is hazardous under RCRA." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43503

First, we do not believe that it is the within the jurisdiction of the SDWA to evaluate the nature of a material, or if a waste determine whether it is hazardous or not. Secondly if we assume, for purposes of argument, that CO2 is

"discarded" and exhibits a hazardous wast e characteristic when injected for long-term sequestration, there are compe lling policy reasons to exclude such activities from RCRA regulation. Subject ing these injection operations to regulation under a Class I UIC hazardous wa ste injection permit could expose all other waste management units at the facili ty, including units that are in no way related to the injection operations, to all of RCRA’s Subtitle C corrective action program. This is because a Class I UIC hazardous waste injection permit is classified as a RCRA "permit by ru le" under RCRA’s hazardous waste permit program. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 270.1(c)(1)(i) and 270.64. Facilities that have obtained a RCRA permit by rule for the ope ration of a Class I UIC hazardous waste injection well are potentially s ubject to the full scope of RCRA’s corrective action program for all solid wa ste management units located at the

7facility. See EPA RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Summary, "Corrective Action for UIC Wells," 9502.1986(07) (April 1986) . The specter of RCRA corrective action is a significant economic and pr actical obstacle for any facility considering whether to seek a permit for a new Class VI well, as facility-wide

RCRA corrective action is an administrativ ely complex and exceedingly expensive undertaking.

The imposition of facility-wide RCRA corre ctive action is unwarranted because any well receiving a permit under the UI C Program for CO2 GS will be, by definition, protective of US DWs. EPA’s RCRA program ha s established a legally sound process, referred to as "contingent management," for the exclusion of materials from hazardous waste regulation when such materials are already subject to an alternate regulatory regime that ensures the wastes are managed in an environmentally protective manner. As discussed below, where the potential for mismanagement of a waste is alre ady adequately addressed by another regulatory regime -- as would be the case with the injection of CO2 under the Class VI UIC program -- regulation of such materials under the RCRA’s hazardous waste program is duplicative and unwarrant ed. EPA has successfully employed the contingent management concept in various contexts where the Agency determined that other regulatory regimes adequately addressed any potential mismanagement scenarios related to certain materials; ex amples include regulation of used oil, mixed radioactive/hazardous waste, and military munitions.

The D.C. Circuit has reviewed EPA's le gal theory underlying the contingent management concept and found it to be a "permissible construction of the statute" -- namely, that the statutor y definition of "hazardous waste" is predicated upon the risks posed by a solid waste when "improperly" managed; therefore, "where a waste might pose a hazard only under limited management scenarios, and other regulatory programs already address such scenarios, EPA is not required to classify a waste as hazardous waste s ubject to regulation under [RCRA] Subtitle C." Military Toxics Pr oject v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948, 958 (D.C. Cir 1998) (emphasis added).Even if such opera tions were deemed subject to RCRA regulation, including a RCRA permit by rule, EPA could -- and should --

establish a conditional exclusion from RC RA regulation for CO 2 GS operations. Such an exclusion would be legally justif ied, consistent with the Agency's past promulgation of conditional exclusion rule s, and would make sound policy sense by removing a potentially significant re gulatory barrier to the commercial development of CO2 GS operations.

Individual Response: EPA agrees CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface th at could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a seque stration facility depends enti rely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental medi a in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain

8“federally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensu re that they prevent potential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

Under the final GS rule, owners or operators wi ll need to determine whether the CO2 stream is hazardous under EPA’s RCRA regulations, and if s o, any injection of the hazardous CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste in jection well under 40 CFR Part 146 Subpart G. 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).

With respect to RCRA, EPA has decided to initi ate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically

to examine the issue of RCRA a pplicability to CO2 streams be ing geologically sequestered, 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 proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter r ead that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also not es that the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23946 Letter Lines: 212 to 217

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

Comment: MODELING

Ameren believes that any model used in evaluating Class VI CO 2 GS project is acceptable provided that it is based on accep ted science and has been validated, and as long as we if are using a propri etary model disclose, as necessary, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis of the model.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that av ailable proprietary models may meet the complex needs for calculating the AoRs of GS sites, and shar es their concern about the need to evaluate the inputs and assumptions used. EP A 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 satisf action, the code assumptions, relevant equations,

and scientific basis. EPA adds that its Confid ential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models.

In response to comments suggesting that histor y matching or validation of these models is needed, EPA believes this is true for any mode l. EPA notes that the GS rule requires at §146.84(e) that the AoR be reevaluated to verify the CO2 plume is moving as predicted and to allow for necessary revisions to the AoR and co rrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injecti on site care and site closure, a nd emergency and remedial response plans. EPA clarifies, however, that the Agency will not perform independent validation of

9individual modeling products.

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: 0198 Comment ID: 23947 Letter Lines: 219 to 229

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation fre quency (seeking comment)

Comment: AREA OF REVIEW AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Ameren will be required to invest a significant amount of time and resources in

the initial delineation of the Area of Re view ("AoR"), but we believe that requiring AoR reevaluations every ten year s or at any other fixed period is unnecessary. A performance-based approach would be more appropriate, with reevaluation required upon o ccurrence of some triggering event; one example of a triggering event could be a significant deviation from previously modeled scenarios, provided that the level of de viation that would re quire reevaluation is agreed to be the permitee and th e regulating agency in the permitting

process.

Individual Response: EPA believes that periodic AoR r eevaluation at a set frequency is necessary to ensure protecti on of USDWs from endangerment and address the uncertainties inherent in predictive modeling. Periodic Ao R reevaluations at §146.84( e) ensure that a deliberate effort is made to verify, based on m onitoring and operational da ta, that the CO2 plume is moving within the subsurface as predicted. EP A believes that less frequent reevaluations may not be sufficient to appropriately model plume a nd pressure front moveme nt, establish conditions for corrective action, and ensure prot ection of USDWs from endangerment.

EPA clarifies that if site m onitoring data agrees with the existing AoR delin eation, a model recalibration may not be necessary, and the AoR reevaluation may consist of a demonstration

that the current AoR delineation is ad equate based on site monitoring data.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23948 Letter Lines: 231 to 240

Comment Code: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/ed its to rule language

Comment Code: 3400 2.2.2 Corrective Action

Comment: We believe that use of the phrase "corre ctive action" to desc ribe well plugging and repair risks confusion with the c oncept of corrective action under either RCRA or CERCLA. This potential confusi on can lead to unwarranted negative

10associations with the ph rase "corrective action," and we would suggest abandoning this phrase and instead use a phrase such as "well plugging and repair." We would then also support a phased approach to well plugging and repair ("corrective action") for CO2 GS we lls as contemplated in the Proposal

and it should be available to all Owners or Operators of CO2 GS wells rather than be available only at the discretio n of the Director. 73 Fed. Reg. at

43507-08.

Individual Response: EPA notes that the term "corrective action" at §146.84(d) has been used to describe the process of a ddressing improperly plugged wells in the AoR of injection wells since the inception of the UIC Program, e.g., at §146.7 and §146.64. While EPA is aware that the term has a different meaning under RCRA and CERC LA, this has not caused confusion in the past. The alternative term, "well plugging," sugges ted by the commenter is reserved for injection well plugging as indicated at §146.92.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23949 Letter Lines: 242 to 251

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

Comment: A CO2 GS site may have an extensive Ao R and requiring well plugging and repair to be complete for all wells in a CO2 GS AoR prior to commencement of the injection project would be unnecessary, a nd unrealistic. We instead support an approach that would require the Owner or Operator of a Class VI well to perform pre-injection well plugging and repair on only those wells within the portion of the AoR that would be intersected by the CO2 plume or pressure front during the initial years of in jection. Well plugging and repair for the rest of the AoR should be allowed to take place as the in jection project progresses, ensuring that, eventually, "all wells in the AoR that need corrective action [well plugging and repair] eventually receive it." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43508.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport of phased corrective action and agrees that phased corrective action may provide 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: 0198 Comment ID: 23950 Letter Lines: 253 to 264

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost

USDW

Comment Code: 4410 2.4.4.3.1 Comments in favor of allowing injection above/between

USDWs in certain circumstances

Comment Code: 4460 2.4.4.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing aquifer exemptions in certain

11circumstances

Comment: INJECTION WELL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS

Ameren supports allowing injection between and/or above the lowermost USDW, provided that the Class VI wells can be shown that their operations will be protective of USDWs. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. This could be particularly important in areas of the c ountry with deep USDWs, where an absolute requirement

that Class VI wells be co nstructed beneath the lowerm ost USDW could render the program impractical. We also support this approach in areas where it can be shown that geologic conditions would preven t fluid movement into adjacent USDWs. Id. Therefore, we oppose an absolute prohibition on use of exempt aquifers for Class VI injection; again use of exempt aquifers could be permitted where the specific aquifer exemption criteria are satisfied. Id.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injecti on into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The

final rule also establishes limited circumstances under which expansions of the areal extent of aquifer exemptions may be granted for owne rs or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS.

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC program Directors and owne rs or operators who undertak e CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to co ncerns about local and re gional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by th e proposed injection depth require ments; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) a llows for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aqui fer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth va riability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking wa ter resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient qua ntities to supply drinking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23952 Letter Lines: 266 to 275

Comment Code: 4120 2.4.1.2 Allowing hydraulic fracturing during GS (seeking comment)

Comment: While hydraulic fracturing is not appropr iate in all geologi c settings, it should be an available option. For y ears, EOR operations have employed hydraulic fracturing to enlarge fracture s in rock; hydraulic fracturing has proven an effective way to create permeab ility and increase well capacity with

12minimal risk to USDWs. This technique has been used for many years, and we believe that regulatory prot ocols could be established to ensure safe and effective hydraulic fracturing where appropr iate for Class VI CO 2 GS operations. A gain, hydraulic fracturing would only be us ed when the Owner or Operator can demonstrate that such fracturing will not jeopardize USDWs or other important

subsurface activities

Individual Response: The final rule allows the use of hydr aulic fracturing at GS sites, where approved by the Director. Hydraulic fracturing is one of several st imulation technologies available to improve wellbore and formation injectivity.

EPA clarifies that all stimula tion, including hydraulic fracturing, must be approved by the Director. Owners or operators must submit a propos ed stimulation program as part of the permit application under §146.82(a)(9); the plan must demonstrate that a ny stimulation act ivities will not compromise the integrity of the confining zone. The Director will evaluate the owner or operator's proposed stimulation plan in the cont ext of all information about the site, and the owner or operator must perform stimulation only as approved.

The final rule at §146.91(d)(2) also requires that the owner or operator notify the Director 30 days before performing stimulation during the operational phase of a GS project; this will provide an additional opportunity for the Director to review the owner or operator's plans for stimulation and add other requirements as neede d. EPA clarifies that UIC regulations prohibit fracturing of the confining zone at any time during injection or s timulation in order to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23953 Letter Lines: 277 to 291

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

Comment: POST-INJECTION SITE CARE

The imposition of a fifty-year default fi xed timeframe for the post-injection site care period will discourage Ameren fr om seeking to develop CO2 GS wells. We agree with EPA that it is likely "that the actual time for CO2 plume stabilization ... will be very site sp ecific, being influenced by geologic factors such as formation permeabilit y, geochemistry, and the degree of capillary trapping." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43519. (emphasis added). We believe that there is no single time period that would apply to every CO2 GS site across the board, due to the greatly varied character istics and needs of different CO2 GS projects, application of a performance-based standard which is highly sitespecific, rather than a default time peri od, is an appropriate approach to the post-injection site care requirements. Ta iloring requirements to a given site, a performance-based standard could also en courage the development of methods and technology that would achieve long -term protection of USDWs.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that th ere will be circumstances where it

13can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the pos t-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b) ; or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in al l but a limited number of cases. This default 50 year post-injection site care ti meframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industr y reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments.

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0198 Comment ID: 23954 Letter Lines: 293 to 306

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing p ublic participation requirements (Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment)

Comment: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Ameren agrees that public participation is an important part of any CO2 GS project, but we urge EPA to require public participat ion after an application has been deemed complete but before it has been approved. We believe that the initial application will require some degr ee of interaction between an Agency and the permitee. Therefore, the best tim e to involve the public is when basic information needs have been fulfilled and there is a belief that the project can move proceed to permitting. The public ca n then voice their c oncerns or support based on the best available information on a project.

Ameren appreciates the opportunity to comm ent on this important rule and would welcome the opportunity to work further with the Agency. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

1415 Individual Response: The Agency believes that public particip ation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wi de access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the pub lic. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participat ion requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the pr ocedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify th e public regarding the availabili ty of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on th e draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public part icipation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and con cerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about th e nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.