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.Clean Air Task Force – Environmental Defen se Fund – Natural Resources Defense Council

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460

June 26, 2009

By electronic and First Class mail

Proposed Rule on Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Dear Administrator Jackson,

We are writing in relation to EPA’s ongoing ef forts to regulate the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (GS). We believe that a tr uly sustainable energy system will utilize opportunities to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy first and foremost. However, the vast majority of our energy in the U.S. and worldwide is still produced from fossil fuels, and this is likely to c ontinue for some time. Faced with a rapidly changing climate, we believe that carbon cap ture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) can and should play an important role in reduci ng greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.

We firmly believe that the two main barriers to implementing CCGS are economic and regulatory – not technological. 1 Ongoing efforts in Congress to pass Federal cap-andtrade legislation with targeted incentives for early adopters of the technology will, if adopted, address the economic barr ier. EPA already has a key ro le to play in providing a regulatory framework for geologic sequestra tion that will cont inue after climate legislation is enacted.

EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking 2 to enable the permitting of a new class of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) Underground Injection Contro l (UIC) Program. We believe that the proposed rule constitutes a significant step forward for the geologic sequestration si de of CCGS, and we thank EPA for its efforts. Our groups have now submitted several sets of individual and joint comments containing technical recommen dations to improve the rule and ensure that geologic sequestration is performed safely and effectively. However, the UIC rulemaking leaves significant gaps that the Agency must address in an expeditious

manner.

1 See, e.g ,. Congressional testimonies by Scott Anderson and David Hawkins, available at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories /Documents/Hearings/PDF /Testimony/EHM/110-ehmhrg.07 2 408.Anderson-testimony.pdf and http://energycommerce. house.gov/Press_111/ 2 00904 2 3/testimony_hawkins.pdf ; and Armond Cohen, et.al (on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force), "NowGe n: Getting Real about Coal Carbon Capture and Sequestration", 22 The Electricity Journal, 25-42 ( May 2009)(describing curren t ready availability of GCS technologies).

2 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008).

1First, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not address airside leakage concerns, as the Clean Air Act (CAA) does. The proposed UIC rule defines and regulates geologic sequestration solely for the purposes of pr otecting underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). This is largely due to the previous Administration’s policy of not engaging in issues that relate to atmospheric CO 2 emissions. However, basing a geologic sequestration rule solely on SD WA authority is incomplete. The primary, if not the only, objective of CCGS is to reduce emissions of CO 2 to the atmosphere, and the need for an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure secu re sequestration is evident. If CCGS is to gain further acceptability, regulatory meas ures aimed at preventing atmospheric emissions are also needed in addition to safeguards for USDWs, even though a rigorous approach to the latter should se rve to reduce the risk of CO 2 leakage to the atmosphere.

Moreover, both the climate legislation now being debated in C ongress and EPA’s own initiatives on regulating CO 2 emissions from large, stationa ry sources are certain to call for or rely on regulations related to atmo spheric emissions. EPA has authority under the

CAA 3 to develop such a framework. If EPA acts expeditiously, it may well be able to implement both its CAA and SDWA authority wit hout missing its stated goal to have an underground injection rule finalized by 2010-2011. Legal challenges resulting from a failure to implement both statutes might cause delays in the permitting of CCS projects, which would be a highly undesirable outcome at a time when CO 2 reductions are badly

needed.

Second, EPA has so far failed to address another urgent need : regulating geologic sequestration in hydrocarbon (oil & gas) reservoirs. Instead, the proposed UIC rule

concentrates on saline formations and addresse s hydrocarbon reservoirs only in the event that production has entirely ceased. An oilfie ld, however, can continue producing small volumes in perpetuity, making cessation of production a meaningless concept as a threshold to entry into the regulatory scheme for CCGS. We consider this to be a serious shortcoming of the rule as currently pr oposed. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a practice that has been taking pl ace for several decades in the U.S., and is likely to play a pivotal part in the early years of geologi c sequestration deployme nt. Reservoirs where EOR is occurring, or can occur, are generally better characterized than their saline counterparts, often have some of the need ed infrastructure in place, and offer an additional economic incentive for the operation as a result of oil production revenues. Many regions in the U.S. possess significant EOR potential that remains untapped due the scarcity of acceptably priced CO 2 . Under climate legislat ion, or a CAA regulatory regime, this situation will change as larg e point sources capture their emissions. We therefore expect EOR to be utilized early during geologic sequestration deployment, for economic and practical reasons. Accordingly, EPA should prioritize development of

3 The Supreme Court has held that CO 2 is an “air pollutant” within EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction.

Massachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007). EPA is currently in the process of considering comments on a proposed rulemaking related to CO 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting (74 Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April 10, 2009), comment period closed June 9, 2009), as well as a proposed endangerment finding prerequisite to setting certain regulatory standards (74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (April 24, 2009), comment period closed June 23, 2009).

2airside regulations, including monitoring and verification protocols for situations where operators desire to simulta neously pursue EOR and geol ogic sequestration. Airside regulations should also be developed for sequestration taking place in oilfields where only minor amounts of oil production occu r and the operation can no longer be

considered EOR.

As EPA correctly recognizes in the pream ble to the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, EOR business as usual and geologic se questration are not the same. The former injects CO 2 for the purposes of maximizing oil production, whereas the latter seeks to sequester the CO 2 permanently in the subs urface. While EOR opera tions are quite likely to result in sequestration, operators now have no regulatory means to verify, measure, and certify its permanence. This shortcoming incr easingly is being brought to our attention by EOR operators who have no recognized way of assuring owners of large CO 2 point sources that injection operat ions result in permanent sequestration. These power plant or industrial facility owners al ready have two reasons to s eek a certification of EOR as geologic sequestration: the carbon dioxide sequestration tax credit under Section 45Q of the tax code and the Department of Ener gy’s (DOE) Federal Loan Guarantee Program. Neither Treasury nor DOE currently has any environmental regulatory basis on which to rest a judgment about the degree of CO 2 sequestration provided by EOR operations.

A third reason to develop standards is likel y to be added to the list soon if Congress passes climate legislation. EPA’ s current position that, as lo ng as any amount of oil is produced, all oilfield sequestration operati ons can only be regulated under UIC Class II requirements, is damaging not only to th e entities seeking to sequester the CO 2 but to the Administration’s stated objectives on climate change. 4

We therefore urge EPA to:

• Address the question of at mospheric emissions of CO 2 as well as protection of underground sources of drinking water related to underground CO 2 injection 5

without delaying promulgation of the pending rule; and

• Create a regulatory framework for ge ologic sequestration, governing not only geologic sequestration in salin e reservoirs, but also in oil & gas reservoirs. This framework should allow for hydrocarbon pr oduction as well as certification of secure sequestration. It should recognize the difference between sequestration that occurs in conjunction with traditional EOR operations and sequestration that may take place in hydrocarbon reservoirs in circumstances where production will tend to be low and storage pressures will tend to be high. Operators who do not wish to perform geologic sequestration can and s hould continue to be regulated under

UIC Class II.

4 We do not seek to change the ru les for business-as-usual EOR operations where th ere is no objective to sequester CO 2

. 5 EPA should add a clear statement of Clean Air Act au thority when it finalizes the UIC rule, as we have

noted in earlier comments on the UIC rule.

34 • EPA should expeditiously develop airsid e accounting, monitoring and reporting provisions for injected CO 2 under the proposed Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Reporting Rule. 6

We urge EPA to consider carefully the point s above before proceeding with a Notice of Data Availability on the proposed UIC rule, and we stress again that it is not our desire to delay EPA’s stated 2010-2011 objective for prom ulgation of final rules. Indeed, we are optimistic that the Agency can incorporate the above suggesti ons within that timeframe.

We thank you for your ongoing efforts as Admi nistrator to protect our environment.

Sincerely,

Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense Fund

44 East Ave, Suite 304, Austin, TX 78701, 512-691-3410, sanderson@edf.org

Ann Brewster Weeks, Clean Air Task Force

18 Tremont St, Suite 530, Boston, MA 02108, 617-624-0234, aweeks@catf.us

George Peridas, Natural Resources Defense Council

111 Sutter St, 20 th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, 415-875-6181, gperidas@nrdc.org

Cc (EPA): Lisa Heinzerling, Gina McCart hy, Brian McLean, Michael Shapiro, Cynthia Dougherty, Stephen Heare, Bruce Kobelski , Lee Whitehurst, Dina Kruger, Anhar Karimjee, Barbora Jemelkova.

Cc (Treasury): Jennifer Bernardini, Jaime Park.

6 74 Fed. Reg, 16,448 (April 10, 2009). Please see also the joint comments of our organizations, and

others, dated June 8, 2009, available here: http://www.regulations. gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064809cf9e9Letter ID: 0295

Commenter: Scott Anderson Organization: Environmental Defense Fund

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26136 Letter Lines: 48 to 56

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS

Comment: We are writing in relation to EPA’s ongoi ng efforts to regulate the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (GS). We be lieve that a truly sustainable energy system will utilize opportunities to incr ease energy efficiency and renewable energy first and foremost. However, the vast majority of our energy in the U.S. and worldwide is still produced from fo ssil fuels, and this is likely to continue for some time. Faced with a rapi dly changing climate, we believe that carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) can and should play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA clar ifies that the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a ma nner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that GS is one techno logy in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuel s and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, wher e GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to th is comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26137 Letter Lines: 57 to 73

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation

Comment: We firmly believe that the two main barriers to implementing CCGS are economic and regulatory – not technological.[FN 1] Ongoing efforts in Congress to pass Federal cap-and- trade legislation with targeted incentives for early adopters of the technology will, if adopted, addr ess the economic barrier. EPA already has a key role to play in providing a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration that will continue afte r climate legislation is enacted.

FN 1. See, e.g,. Congressional testimonies by Scott Anderson and David Hawkins,

available at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stori es/Documents/Hearings/PDF/Testimony/

1EHM/110-ehm- hrg.072408.Anderson-testimony.pdf and

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pre ss_111/20090423/testimony_hawkins.pdf; and Armond Cohen, et.al (on behalf of the Cl ean Air Task Force), "NowGen: Getting

Real about Coal Carbon Ca pture and Sequestration", 22 Th e Electricity Journal, 25-42 ( May 2009)(describing current ready availability of GCS technologies).

Individual Response: "Cap and trade" legislation is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that, wh ere GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26138 Letter Lines: 75 to 86

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking [FN 2] to enable the permitting of a new class of carbon dioxide (CO2) injecti on wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) Underground Injection Contro l (UIC) Program. We believe that the proposed rule constitutes a significa nt step forward for the geologic sequestration side of CCGS, and we tha nk EPA for its efforts. Our groups have

now submitted several sets of individual and joint comments containing technical recommendations to improve the rule and ensure that geologic sequestration is performed safely and effectively. However, the UIC rulemaking leaves significant gaps that the Agency must addr ess in an expeditious manner.

FN 2. 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008).

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: 0295 Comment ID: 26139 Letter Lines: 88 to 120

Comment Code: 1430 1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection

Comment: First, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not address airside leakage concerns, as the Clean Air Act (CAA) does. The propos ed UIC rule defines and regulates geologic sequestration solely for the purposes of prot ecting underground sources

2of drinking water (USDWs). This is largel y due to the previous Administration’s policy of not engaging in issues that relate to atmospheric CO2 emissions. However, basing a geologic sequestration rule solely on SDWA authority is incomplete. The primary, if not the on ly, objective of CCGS is to reduce emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and th e need for an appropr iate regulatory framework to ensure secure sequestration is evident. If CCGS is to gain further acceptability, regulatory measures aimed at preventing atmospheric emissions are also needed in addition to safeguards for USDWs, even though a rigorous approach

to the latter should serve to reduce the risk of CO2 l eakage to the atmosphere.

Moreover, both the climate legislation now being debated in Congress and EPA’s own initiatives on regulating CO2 emissions from large, stationary sources are certain to call for or rely on regulations related to atmospheric emissions. EPA has authority under the CAA [FN 3] to de velop such a framework. If EPA acts expeditiously, it may well be able to impl ement both its CAA and SDWA authority without missing its stated goal to have an underground injection rule finalized by 2010-2011. Legal challenges resulting fr om a failure to implement both statutes might cause delays in the permitting of CCS projects, which would be a highly undesirable outcome at a time when CO2 reductions are badly needed.

FN 3. The Supreme Court has held that CO 2 is an “air pollutant” within EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). EPA is currently in the process of consider ing comments on a proposed rulemaking related to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting (74 Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April 10, 2009), comment peri od closed June 9, 2009), as well as a proposed endangerment finding prereq uisite to setting certain regulatory standards (74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (April 24, 2009) , comment period closed June 23, 2009).

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Ma nagement). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redunda ncy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please s ee the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to

the final GS rule. Please note all comments rela ted to EPA’s authority outside the SDWA are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

3Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordi nate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with

and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

In response to the comment suggesting that EP A harmonize with international rules and best practices, EPA clarifies that it is monitoring the pr ogress of international research and legislative developments; a paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS pr ojects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of

USDWs within the United States.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to re gulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plan s to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropr iate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are approp riate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26140 Letter Lines: 122 to 146

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 2140 1.6.2 Depleted oil and gas reservoirs

Comment: Second, EPA has so far failed to addre ss another urgent need: regulating geologic sequestration in hydrocarbon (oil & gas) re servoirs. Instead, the proposed UIC rule concentrates on salin e formations and addresses hydrocarbon reservoirs only in the event that prod uction has entirely ceas ed. An oilfield, however, can continue producing small volu mes in perpetuity, making cessation of production a meaningless concept as a thre shold to entry into the regulatory

scheme for CCGS. We consider this to be a serious shortcoming of the rule as currently proposed. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a practice that has been taking place for several decades in the U. S., and is likely to play a pivotal part in the early years of geologic seque stration deployment. Reservoirs where EOR is occurring, or can occur, are genera lly better character ized than their saline counterparts, often have some of th e needed infrastructure in place, and

offer an additional economic incentive fo r the operation as a result of oil production revenues. Many regions in the U.S. possess significant EOR potential that remains untapped due the scarcity of acceptably priced CO2. Under climate legislation, or a CAA regulat ory regime, this situation will change as large point sources capture their emissions. We therefore expect EOR to be utilized early during geologic sequestration depl oyment, for economic and practical reasons. Accordingly, EPA should prioritize development of airside regulations, including monitoring and veri fication protocols for situ ations where operators desire to simultaneously pursue EOR and geologic sequestration. Airside regulations should also be developed for sequestration taking place in oilfields where only minor amounts of oil producti on occur and the opera tion can no longer

4be considered EOR.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Ma nagement). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redunda ncy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please s ee the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

EPA notes that comments related to the deve lopment of “air side” regulations for EOR are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. However, in a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Gree nhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilitie s that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO 2 underground (subpart UU).

In response to comments on depleted oil and gas reservoirs, EPA believes that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program, and that the nature a nd risks of CO2 injection for th e primary purpose of long term storage poses different risks th an injection for the primary pur pose of ER. EPA therefore has developed new Class VI regulations to address these unique risks. For more information, please

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

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26141 Letter Lines: 148 to 174

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: As EPA correctly recognizes in the preamble to the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, EOR business as usual a nd geologic sequestration are not the same. The former injects CO2 for the purposes of maximizing oil production, whereas the latter seeks to sequester the CO2 permanently in the subsurface. While EOR operations are quite likely to result in sequestrati on, operators now have no regulatory means to verify, measure, and certify its permanence. This shortcoming increasingly is being brought to our attention by EOR operators who have no recognized way of assuring owners of large CO2 point sources that injection operations result in permanen t sequestration. These power plant or industrial facility owners already have two reasons to seek a certification of

5EOR as geologic sequestration: the carbon dioxide sequestration tax credit under Section 45Q of the tax code and the Depa rtment of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Loan Guarantee Program. Neither Treasury nor DOE currently has any environmental regulatory basis on which to rest a ju dgment about the degree of CO2 sequestration provided by EOR operations.

A third reason to develop standards is lik ely to be added to the list soon if Congress passes climate legislation. EPA’s current position that, as long as any amount of oil is produced, all oilfield sequestration operations can only be regulated under UIC Class II requirements, is damaging not only to the entities seeking to sequester the CO2 but to th e Administration’s stated objectives on climate change. [FN 4]

FN 4. We do not seek to change the ru les for business-as-usual EOR operations where there is no objective to sequester CO2.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that th e Class VI GS rule is designed to ensure the protection of USDW s from endangerment. Carbon crediting and green house gas accounting are outside the scope of the GS rule making and outside of EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26142 Letter Lines: 176 to 184

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention)

Comment: We therefore urge EPA to:

• Address the question of atmospheric emi ssions of CO2 as well as protection of underground sources of drinking water rela ted to underground CO2 injection [FN 5] without delaying promulgati on of the pending rule; and

FN 5. EPA should add a clear statement of Clean Air Act authority when it finalizes the UIC rule, as we have noted in earlier comments on the UIC rule.

6Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping 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 Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate 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 Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch 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 entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

In a separate rulemaking under authority of th e Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporti ng requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) a nd all other facilities that in ject CO2 underground (subpart UU). For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and docket.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26143 Letter Lines: 185 to 194

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: • Create a regulatory framework for geol ogic sequestration, governing not only geologic sequestration in sa line reservoirs, but also in oil & gas reservoirs. This framework should allow for hydrocar bon production as well as certification of secure sequestration. It should recognize the difference between sequestration that occurs in conjuncti on with traditional EOR operations and sequestration that may take place in hydr ocarbon reservoirs in circumstances where production will tend to be low and storage pressures will tend to be high. Operators who do not wish to perform geologic sequestration can and should continue to be regulat ed under UIC Class II.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary

7purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery shoul d remain under the Class II Program, and that the nature and risks of CO2 inj ection for the primary purpose of long term storage poses different risks than injection for the primary purpose of ER. EPA therefore has developed new Class VI regulations to address these uni que risks. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility.

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26144 Letter Lines: 195 to 202

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention)

Comment: • EPA should expeditiously develop airside accounting, monitoring and reporting provisions for injected CO2 under the proposed Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Reporting Rule. [FN 6]

FN 6. 74 Fed. Reg, 16,448 (April 10, 2009). Plea se see also the joint comments of our organizations, and others, dated June 8, 2009, available here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c omponent/main?main=D ocumentDetail&o=

09000064809cf9e9

Individual Response: Comments related to the need to de velop regulations under the Clean Air Act are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Howe ver, in a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for f acilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble enti tled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and docket. EPA clarifies that accounting for injected carbon dioxide is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping 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 Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource

89 Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch 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 entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.