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.

# Peabod q p

. 1

701 Market Street

PEABODY ENERGY St

. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826

314 .342 .3400

Sent Via Certified Mail

December 17, 2008

Water Docket

U .S

. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N .W

. Washington, DC 20460

Docket ID No

. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

## DEC 2 2 2008

Comments on Proposed Rule : Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection

Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells

Ladies and Gentlemen :

The following general comments are submitted by Peabody Energy in response to

EPA's proposed federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for

the underground injection of carbon dioxide ("C02") for the purpose of geologic

sequestration

. EPA is to be commended for beginning the process to provide regulatory clarity for C02 sequestration

.

While Peabody Energy is generally supportive of the proposed rule, we believe the final

rule should be modified to provide greater certainty for CCS projects that would like to proceed in the interim prior to promulgation of the final rule

. The rule should also provide more certainty and flexibility to convert Class II EOR wells to permanent C02

storage wells

. As proposed, the site geology requirements seem to be unduly

burdensome without any real additional safety benefit to underground sources of drinking water

. Site geology should be considered on a case by case basis to prevent

the categorical elimination of sites which may be technically acceptable

.

In an effort to reduce possible duplicate comments, we have reviewed the comments prepared by industry groups to which we belong and agree generally with the

conclusions and approach of those comments

. Those groups are as follows :

Carbon Capture and Storage Alliance

FutureGen Industrial Alliance 

## DEC 17 2008

Coal Utilization Research Council

Gasification Technologies Council

North American Caron Capture and Storage Association

Western Business RoundtableWe encourage EPA to consider seriously all of these comments which, if taken into

consideration, could help create a more flexible, performance based Class VI program recognizing the characteristics of C02 injections

.

Thank you for considering our comments

. Should you have any questions please

contact me at 314 .342 .7613 or email to dtickner@peabodyenergy .com

.

Sincerely,

Dianna TicknerLetter ID: 0262

Commenter: Dianna Tickner

Organization: Peabody Energy

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22990 Letter Lines: 44 to 48

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: The following general comments are submitted by Peabody Energy in response to

EPA's proposed federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for

the underground injectio n of carbon dioxide ("CO2") fo r the purpose of geologic

sequestration. EPA is to be commended for beginning the process to provide

regulatory clarity for CO2 sequestration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22991 Letter Lines: 50 to 53

Comment Code: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: While Peabody Energy is generally supportiv e of the proposed rule, we believe

the final rule should be modified to pr ovide greater certaint y for CCS projects

that would like to procee d in the interim prior to promulgation of the final

rule. The rule should also provide more certainty and flexibility to convert

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the importance of provi ding clear, flexible, scalable, and

appropriate regulations. EPA belie ves that the GS regulation will provide certainty to industry

and the public by providing consistency in requir ements across the U.S. and transparency about

what requirements apply to owners or operators.

Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment and the final rule and preamble for

further details.

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22992 Letter Lines: 53 to 54

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/

dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

1Comment: rule. The rule should also provide more certainty and flexibility to convert

Class II EOR wells to permanent CO2 stor age wells. As proposed, the site geology

Individual Response: The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operator

injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some

special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to

meet Class VI requirements. The Di rector has the authority to dete rmine at what point a Class VI

permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to

long term storage of CO2. The fina l regulation provides a set of tec hnical factors for the Director

to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that th is approach provides

sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to

traditional Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility.

EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance

will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from

Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary

purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The gu idance describes the recommended

methods the Director may use to evaluate change s in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the

Director may determine whether a project should be regulated within th e Class II or Class VI

UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. For more information, please

see the discussion on transition of Class II well s in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22993 Letter Lines: 54 to 58

Comment Code: 3140 2.1.4 Comments that the proposed ge ologic data requirements are too

stringent

Comment: Class II EOR wells to permanent CO2 stor age wells. As proposed, the site geology

requirements seem to be unduly burdensome without any real additional safety

benefit to underground sources of dri nking water. Site geology should be

considered on a case by case basis to pr event the categorical elimination of

sites which may be technically acceptable.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the require ments at §146.82 are unnecessary and

unduly burdensome and believes that a detailed geol ogical site characterization is essential to

evaluating the presence and adequacy of the vari ous geologic features n ecessary to receive and

confine injected CO2 for GS. The requirements fo r geologic site charac terization are based on a

long standing UIC regulatory fram ework developed to address sp ecific risks to USDWs posed by

injection. The Class VI GS require ments are tailored so that they are appropriate for the unique

nature of injecting larg e volumes of CO2 into a variety of geological formations for long-term

storage.

EPA agrees that site characterizati on should be site-specific, particul arly in light of the variety of

geologic settings in which GS may be employe d. EPA believes that, while there is a large

2amount of required information, the owner or operat or is given flexibility in determining what

methods are used to demonstrate the suitability of a potential site. EPA envisions an ongoing

dialogue between the Director and the owner or operator during the permitting process (as well

as throughout the operation of the site).

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22994 Letter Lines: 60 to 69

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: In an effort to reduce possible duplicat e comments, we have reviewed the

comments prepared by industry groups to wh ich we belong and agree generally with

the conclusions and approach of those co mments. Those groups are as follows :

Carbon Capture and Storage Alliance

FutureGen Industrial Alliance

Coal Utilization Research Council

Gasification Technologies Council

North American Caron Captur e and Storage Association

Western Business Roundtable

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's

responses to this comment lette r and response to comments from the Carbon Capture and Storage

Alliance, FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Co al Utilization Research Council, Gasification

Technologies Council, North American Carbon Ca pture and Storage Asso ciation, and Western

Business Roundtable for further details. For a dditional information on EPA's final regulatory

approach, please see the final rule and pr eamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0262 Comment ID: 22995 Letter Lines: 71 to 73

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

Comment: We encourage EPA to consider seriously all of these comments which, if taken

into consideration, could help create a mo re flexible, performance based Class

VI program recognizing the charact eristics of CO2 injections.

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.

3