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.November 17, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Water Docket Attention: Docket # EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460

To Whom It May Concern:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Departme nt of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Department of Conservation and Natural Resource s (DCNR) are pleased to provide comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule, “Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC ) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells,” published for comment on July 25, 2008, at 73 Federal Register 43492.

Section 27 (relating to natural resources and the public estate) of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that, “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the pres ervation of the natural,

scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environmen t. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, in cluding generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the

Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

Geologic sequestration of CO 2 would have to be conducted in a manner that complied with the laws and regulations of the Comm onwealth. Although Pennsylvania doe s not have specific groundwater protection statutes, the Clean Streams Law provide s the legal framework for managing the groundwater quality in the waters of the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of 1937, P.L. 1987, as amended in 1989, provides for preserva tion and improvement of the waters of the Commonwealth for the protection of public health, animal and aquatic life, and/or industrial consumption, and recreation. The Act states that “...the waters of the Commonwealth shall be construed to include any and all rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets, impoundments, ditches, and other bodies or channels of conveyance of surface and underground (emphasis added) water, or parts thereof,

whether natural or artificial, wi thin or on the boundaries of the Commonwealth.” Through the Clean Streams Law and specific program regulations, the goals and standards are integrat ed with all other state water quality and environmental goals. Specifically, 35 PA Code chapter 91.51 and chapter 91.52 prohibit disposal of wastes underg round by means that pose a threat to underground sources of drinking

water.

Act 70 of 2008, the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, requires DEP to establish a permanent climate change advisory committee, designate voluntary emissions and o ffset registries, establish annual greenhouse gas inventories, develop an impacts asse ssment that identifies both scientific and economic impacts to Pennsylvania from climate change, and cr eate a climate change mitigation action plan. The inventories, impacts assessment, and climate change action plan are to be presented to the GeneralU.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 2 - November 17, 2008

Assembly and Governor, and are to be updated every three years. Currently, DEP is working with the climate change advisory committee to comply with Act 70.

Act 129 of 2008, amending the Title 66 (Public U tilities) of the Penns ylvania Consolidated Statues, requires DCNR to conduct studies of carbon capture and seque stration, and present its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly by mid-to-late 2009. The studies will include:

(1) Identification of suitable geologica l formations for the location of a CO 2 sequestration network (due May 1, 2009); and (2) An independent assessment (due November 1, 2009) of the following:

a) Costs to establish, operate, and maintain a CO 2 sequestration network; b) Safety and potential risk to individuals, property, and the environment associated with the geological sequestration of CO 2 ; c) Existing federal and state regulator y standards for the storage of CO 2 ; d) Factors contained in the U.S. EPA’s vulnerability evaluation framework for geologic sequestration of CO 2 ; e) Different types of insurance, bonds, othe r instruments and recommended levels of insurance which should be carried by an operator of a st ate network during construction and operation, and availa bility of commercial insurance; f) Models for the establishment of a Co mmonwealth fund to provide protection against risk.

Following review of the above, Act 129 authorizes DC NR to conduct a pilot project to determine the viability of establishing a network in Pennsylvania that facilitates carbon capture, pipeline transmission, and geologic sequestration.

The government of the Commonwealth of Pennsy lvania is committed to preserving the natural resources and public estate afforded to the people of Pennsylvania. Both DEP and DCNR are interested in the greenhouse gas reduction opport unities that responsible carbon capt ure and storage may present. However, these opportunities should be approached w ith a clear understanding of the potential risks and must only be pursued with the best tools-in-hand to mitigate such risks. The DEP and DCNR believe that EPA’s proposed rule represents a solid effort to categorize and prev ent some of the potential risks to underground sources of drinking water (USDW) that ar e associated with carbon capture and storage. The DEP and DCNR appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Proposed Class VI Permit Requirements

• The permit applicant (owner/operator) for a propo sed UIC Class VI well must demonstrate in the permit application that he owns the right to inject the CO 2 into the property and that his ownership extends to the entire area to which the CO 2 may migrate.

• Section 146.82 sets forth the information wh ich the owner or operator must submit...

“(b) A map showing the injecti on well(s) for which a permit is sought and the applicable area

of review. Within the area of review, the map must show... Only information of public record is required ( emphasis added ) to be included on this map;....”U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 3 - November 17, 2008

While it may be prudent to show only public inform ation, it is also easy to avoid the aggravation of a diligent search by requiring that only public information is shown. This should not relieve the permittee from sharing any confidential in formation about the area, the subsurface conditions, the potential adjoini ng landuse, etc. Regulations s hould require full and complete

disclosure of all information known, even if a confidential submittal is required.

• It is possible that the owner/ operator would be required to obt ain information from neighboring non-owners in order to meet the requirements iden tified in the permit requirement and or area of review sections. EPA should identify the mean s by which Class VI owners/operators can obtain this information. This point is especially rele vant to the inclusion of ‘buffer zones’ (see comments on the Area of Review) and the need to obtain site-specific information about these

buffers.

Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements

• The proposed regulations should better express the need for characterizing the number, location, and depth of “underground sources of drinking wa ter.” Specifically, Pennsylvania recommends the addition of a subsection under “Geologic Siting Requirements” that calls for a hydrogeologic

characterization of USDWs in th e area of review. Although a num ber of technical requirements for such a characterization are presented in the Technical Support Document, “Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis,” such visibility is not present in the proposed rule itself. The depth and capacity of the regional gr oundwater system should be established in this characterization, along with other required details described in the Technical Support

Documents. Groundwater flow directions and approximate water budgets to estimate deep components of flow will help to assess any in jection well impacts to USDWs. Fracturing and faulting in context with the re gional groundwater system should be a part of the hydrogeologic characterization. This would include an uncertainty analysis of current knowledge for the area.

Also, consideration should be given for a recomme ndation of scales for maps and cross sections. Scales should be sufficient to provide enough detail for the “detailed geologic assessment.”

• The definition and criteria to ‘show or demonstr ate secondary containment of the reservoir’ does not make sense for PA geology. EPA should al low for demonstration approaches that are flexible to regional geology.

Proposed Area of Review a nd Corrective Action Requirements

• PA needs to be assured that the designated “A rea of Review” is suffi cient and inclusive to provide for sound analysis of the impacts and control of potential environmental impacts to groundwater, water supplies, and surface water. State complications may arise from property and mineral rights related to permitting and opera tions of the proposed Class VI regulations

based on this definiti on and its application.

• Area of Review should include a “buffer zone” surrounding the Area of Review boundary that is adequate to address risk of improper assessment. The size of the boundary should be left to the applicant but should be subject to the Director’s approval.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 4 - November 17, 2008

• The proposed rule discusses multiphase modeling and considers them appropriate for hydraulically connected formations being used by different operators. Where there are multiple operators injecting into a formation that is hydraulically connected, rules should require an

evaluation of the chemical reaction of the differe nt injections, unless th ey are chemically the

same, as well as their interaction with native fluids.

• Proprietary models should not be acceptable for use because of the complex nature of the activity and the many unknowns. Through a transparent process, EPA should maintain minimum modeling standards and assumptions required for approval.

• The rule proposes phased correc tive action (plugging of existing penetrations) after injection begins, but the corrective action is to occur in advance of the CO 2 plume. The rule should require all corrective action to o ccur before injection begins, or, if phased corrective action is to be approved, then the operator must post a 100 percent performance bond with the permitting agency before the permit is issued. The perfor mance bond is to be in the amount necessary for the permitting agency to immediately complete the corrective action should the owner/operator fail to do so in a timely manner.

Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements

• Appropriate deed restrictions and surface contro ls should be required to be implemented by the owner/operator to prevent another person from compromising the integrity of the confinement

zone.

• Language is included in the proposed rule deta iling how the injection well will be monitored during its operation, but there is no language included that regul ates the monitoring of areas surrounding the injection well. There is also concern about how deep and how close to the capping (sealing) formation the surrounding monito ring wells and other wells should be allowed to approach the capping formation.

Proposed Mechanical Integrity Testing Requirements

• “Section 146.89 Mechanical integrity.

(a) A Class VI well has mechanical integrity if:

(1) There is no significant leak in the casing, tubing or packer; and (2) There is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through channels adjacent to the injection well bore.

(b) To evaluate the absence of significant leaks under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, owners or operators must....”

There is no definition of “significant” in the do cument. A definition shou ld be included that explains how the term will be defined, such as some measurement around a mean, a varianceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 5 - November 17, 2008

interval, etc. Too often the term is used without an understanding of its technical meaning. This will also help the permittee to understand what is expectated.

• ‘De minimus’ CO 2 leakage values should be determined and defined, as well as the acceptable measurement methodology and verification practices.

Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements

• EPA should specifically identify (by technology) what type of monitoring would be necessary and applicable to verify containment of the CO 2 and any failures away from the injection wells

themselves.

• Depending on the geology surrounding the containm ent formation, it is possible that the CO 2 could be absorbed/adsorbed by some of the surro unding formations. This could cause a drop in pressure not directly associated with leakage. EPA should determine or allow for a maximum allowable pressure drop, or co rrection value, dependent on th e appropriate surrounding geology.

• EPA should identify specific technologies or proce sses that will enable operators or owners to verify that the CO 2 is moving the way in which the models indicated.

• EPA should identify existing methods for remediation of a rogue CO 2 plume.

Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

• The chemistry of the gas stream will be affected by the fuel source and the operating conditions of the capture and purification systems. These da ta, while not the responsi bility of the operator, can have significant impacts on the gas constitu ents. Semi-annual reports will not be timely in identifying these impacts. The operator should re quire reports from the gas source, which can be forwarded to EPA as part of the semi-annual re port, or as an additional submittal between the semi-annual reports. Once parameters of operations are known, the reports could be waived or modified. A specific example of a potential conc ern: Power Plant A receives a modification to its air permit from a non-primacy state. The m odification allows the burning of petcoke, which commonly has a high vanadium content. Va nadium oxides can form on operating surfaces, affecting capture system efficiencies, or possibl e modifying down-hole beha vior. This type of change could greatly affect the overall system.

Also, operating performance of the gas suppliers ’ systems should be monitored. Changes in characteristics such as pressure drop, filter cloth e fficiencies, increases or changes in dilution air, etc., can affect the quality of the CO 2 stream.

Proposed Financial Responsibili ty and Long-Term Care Requirements

• There is no language in the propos ed regulation that c overs compensation to homeowners for the degradation or loss of a water supply.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 6 - November 17, 2008

• EPA should consider how Class VI wells and associ ated GS projects could impact the ownership of mineral rights in formations that are penetrated en route to the CO 2 storage reservoir. Some suggestions include a mechanism to require disclosu re of mineral rights th at may be impacted by a sequestration project and how such ow nership issues will be resolved.

• If phased corrective action (pluggi ng of existing penetrations) is to be approved, then the operator must post a 100 percent performance bond with the permitting agency before the permit is issued. The performance bond is to be in the amount necessary for the permitting agency to immediately complete the corr ective action should the owner/ope rator fail to timely do so.

Primacy for Class VI Wells

• There are no statutory limitations to EPA granting primacy to st ates for individual classes of underground injection wells; however, EPA typically refuses to do so by policy. Pennsylvania requests that EPA allow separable primacy fo r the proposed Class VI UIC well program, to secure that option. Resources to conduct the pr ogram continue to be the issue for any state considering primacy of the UIC program. Federa l appropriations have been stagnant for over a decade at $10 million for the national program. Pe nnsylvania is concerned that EPA may not be able to secure the funding necessary to devel op a robust Class VI well program that includes onthe-ground resources for non-primacy states.

• Adequate resources must be made available to effectively develop and implement a program for this added category of UIC well that is this si gnificantly different from other UIC well types.

Proposed Duration of Class VI Injection Permit

• Permit renewal or review requirements should be added to the proposed rulemaking. The permit renewal or review process allows for extra pe rmit transparency and regulatory authority to monitor and safeguard the operation. Pennsylvani a recommends permit renewal or review every 10 years.

Target Geologic Formations fo r Geologic Sequestration of CO 2

• EPA states in their documents (examples: pa ges 43502 to 43503 and 43512) that there are coal formations too deep to ever be mined. This is no t true in Pennsylvania. All coal formations in Pennsylvania are at depths th at are technologically capable of being mined. Economics will dictate whether or not these deeper coal formations will be mined.

• DEP and DCNR agree that EPA shoul d preclude the injection of CO 2 for long-term storage into coal seams where they are above the lowermost USDW.

• There are safety issues a ssociated with injecting CO 2 below existing coal reserves. Uplifting pressure effects from injection below coal seams, or within deeper coal formations, may rupture

flooded abandoned mines situated a bove active coal mines and will also drive coal bed methane upward into overlying active mines. There is also the safety issue of having an injection well(s) penetrate through coal before it is mined, wh ich could be encounter ed during mining withU.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 7 - November 17, 2008

devastating effects, both from injected CO 2 release and from sparks from mining equipment encountering drill casing, and igni ting coal bed methane. Pennsyl vania regulates against this occurrence, with respect to o il and gas wells drilled through un mined coal formations, by the issuance of a pillar permit. Th e interaction of coal mines and wells is a major safety concern addressed by PA Chapter 78 Oil & Gas Wells. This regulation states that no permit will be

issued for a well at a location that would, in th e opinion of DEP, endanger the safety of persons working in a coal mine. Pennsylvania regulations do not address coal mine safety issues related to water wells or underground injection wells.

• In drilling through an unmined coal formation re source or gas or oil reservoir formation, what area and distances from the injection drill path are considered safe for development? In Pennsylvania, when oil and gas wells are develo ped through a coal formation resource, a pillar permit is obtained which defines the area of safe ty within the undevel oped resource formation surrounding the drill path.

How Would This Proposal Affect Existing Injection Wells Under the UIC Program?

• DEP and DCNR are concerned about the upgradi ng requirements necessary to grandfather existing EOR wells into the Class VI program. Hi storically, grandfathered installations such as

wells have not been constructed to current stan dards and may not have adequate materials to meet the new requirements for injection. The standa rd of proof to demonstr ate that an old well is adequate to be “grandfathered” should be high. The risk of ne eding remediation outweighs the inconvenience of upgrading an existing injection well.

Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream

• EPA should specify a CO 2 purity requirement to prevent the in clusion of contaminants (example: hydrogen sulfide, sulfurous and ni trous oxides), the inclusion of which would not classify the

CO 2 stream as a hazardous waste/substance bu t could potentially endanger USDW and/or

enhance corrosiveness. DEP understands th at this subpart does not apply to a CO 2 stream that

meets the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261.

Additional Issues

• Fluids could be brought to the surface during the drilling, comple tion and operation of the Class

VI well. In the event formational fluids ar e brought to the surface during the sequestration process, appropriate measures must be taken. The regulation should addr ess the issue of these

fluids.

• DEP believes that the CO 2 for geologic sequestration is a resi dual waste if it does not otherwise qualify as a hazardous waste. Pennsylvania’s So lid Waste Management Act and residual waste regulations define disposal to include the injection of a residual waste and require a permit for disposal.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 8 - November 17, 2008

In conclusion, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintains that this proposed rule represents a good initial effort to address issues related to the protection of USDW, while allowing for the potential development of carbon capture and storage. Pennsylvania is interested in partic ipating in the process of addressing the questions, comments and concerns id entified in this document. DEP and DCNR appreciate the opportunity to comment on this propos ed regulation and look fo rward to assisting the EPA in concentrating on some of the remaining issues.

Should you have any questions or require additi onal information, please feel free to contact

Christina Simeone, Executive Polic y Specialist, Department of Environmental Protection, RCSOB,

400 Market Street, 16th Floor , Harrisburg, PA 17101, 717-783-6395.

Sincerely, Sincerely,

John Hanger Michael DiBerardinis Acting Secretary Secretary Department of Environmental Protec tion Department of Conservation

and Natural ResourcesLetter ID: 0130 Commenter: John Hanger Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21499 Letter Lines: 23 to 93

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory effort s on GS (seeking comment)

Comment: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s De partment of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Department of Conservation and Natu ral Resources (DCNR) are pleased to provide comments on the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule, "Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injectio n Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologi c Sequestration (GS) Wells," published for comment on July 25, 2008, at 73 Federal Register 43492.

Section 27 (relating to na tural resources and the public estate) of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that, "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and

esthetic values of the environment. Pe nnsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, in cluding generations yet to come. As

trustee of these resources, the Commonwea lth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

Geologic sequestration of CO2 would have to be conducted in a manner that complied with the laws and regula tions of the Commonwealth. Although Pennsylvania does not have specific groundw ater protection stat utes, the Clean Streams Law provides the legal framework for managing the groundwater quality in

the waters of the Commonwealth. The Penns ylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of 1937, P.L. 1987, as amended in 1989, provides for preservation and improvement

of the waters of the Commonwealth for th e protection of public health, animal and aquatic life, and/or i ndustrial consumption, and recreation. The Act states

that "the waters of the Commonwealth sh all be construed to include any and all rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets, impound ments, ditches, and other bodies or channels of conveyance of surface and unde rground (emphasis added) water, or parts thereof, whether natura l or artificial, within or on the boundaries of the Commonwealth." Through the Clean Streams Law and speci fic program regulations, the goals and standards are integrated with all other state water quality and environmental goals. Specifically, 35 PA Code chapter 91.51 and chapter 91.52 prohibit disposal of wastes undergro und by means that pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water.

Act 70 of 2008, the Pennsylvania Climate Chan ge Act, requires DEP to establish a permanent climate change advisory committ ee, designate voluntary emissions and offset registries, establish annual gr eenhouse gas inventories, develop an

1impacts assessment that identifies both scientific and economic impacts to Pennsylvania from climate change, and create a climate change mitigation action plan. The inventories, impacts assessment, and climate change action plan are to be presented to the General Assembly and Governor, and are to be updated every three years. Currently, DEP is work ing with the climate change advisory committee to comply with Act 70.

Act 129 of 2008, amending the Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues, requires DCNR to conduct studies of carbon capture and sequestration, and present its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly by mid-to-late 2009. The studies will include:

(1) Identification of suitable geological formations for the location of a CO2 sequestration network (due May 1, 2009); and

(2) An independent assessment (due November 1, 2009) of the following:

a) Costs to establish, operate, and main tain a CO2 sequestration network; b) Safety and potential risk to indi viduals, property, and the environment associated with the geologi cal sequestration of CO2; c) Existing federal and state regulatory standards for the st orage of CO2; d) Factors contained in the U.S. EPA’s vulnerability evaluation framework for geologic sequestration of CO2; e) Different types of insurance, bonds, ot her instruments and recommended levels of insurance which should be carried by an operator of a st ate network during construction and operation, and availa bility of commercial insurance; f) Models for the establishmen t of a Commonwealth fund to provi de protection against risk.

Following review of the above, Act 129 au thorizes DCNR to conduct a pilot project to determine the viability of establishing a network in Pennsylvania that facilitates carbon capture, pi peline transmission, and geologic sequestration.

The government of the Commonwealth of Pe nnsylvania is committed to preserving the natural resources and public estate a fforded to the people of Pennsylvania.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and im portance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are current ly in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups , technical guidance, and stra tegies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, work er safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploi tation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy pr ograms in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Cl ass VI wells than the Federal requirements.

2Throughout the regulatory devel opment process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states' regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Reque st for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring of states' regulatory effort s and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information about th ese state activities may be found in the docket

for the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21500 Letter Lines: 94 to 102

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: Both DEP and DCNR are interested in th e greenhouse gas redu ction opportunities that responsible carbon capture and st orage may present. However, these opportunities should be approached with a clear understanding of the potential risks and must only be pursued with the best tools-in-hand to mitigate such

risks. The DEP and DCNR believe that EP A’s proposed rule represents a solid effort to categorize and prevent some of the potential risks to underground sources of drinking water (USDW) that ar e associated with carbon capture and storage. The DEP and DCNR appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport and agrees that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique ch allenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources a nd have other adverse impacts. However, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large vol umes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potenti al impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, si ting, construction, opera tion, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect

USDWs.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21501 Letter Lines: 104 to 132

Comment Code: 3150 2.1.5 Comments on required permit information (40 CFR 146.82)

Comment: Proposed Class VI Permit Requirements

-The permit applicant (owner/operator) for a proposed UIC Class VI well must demonstrate in the permit application that he owns the right to inject the CO2 into the property and that his ownership extends to the entire area to which the CO2 may migrate.

-Section 146.82 sets forth the informati on which the owner or operator must

submit

3"(b) A map showing the injection we ll(s) for which a permit is sought and the applicable area of review. Within the area of review, the map must show... Only information of public record is requi red (emphasis added) to be included on this map;...."

While it may be prudent to show only pub lic information, it is also easy to avoid the aggravation of a diligent se arch by requiring that only public information is shown. This should not relieve the permittee from sharing any

confidential information about the ar ea, the subsurface conditions, the potential adjoining landuse, etc. Regulati ons should require full and complete

disclosure of all information known, ev en if a confiden tial submittal is required.

-It is possible that the owner/operator w ould be required to obtain information from neighboring non-owners in order to meet the requirements identified in the permit requirement and or area of review sections. EPA should identify the means by which Class VI owners/operators can obt ain this information. This point is especially relevant to the inclusion of ‘buffer zones’ (see comments on the Area of Review) and the need to obtain site-s pecific information about these buffers.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that land and pore spac e ownership issues are outside the scope of the GS regulation and disa grees that it is necessary that the owner or operator of a GS

site own the entire area to wh ich the CO2 may migrate. EPA does believe, however, that it is important that the owner or operator have surf ace access to wells that require corrective action and for all necessary testing and monitoring during the life of the project. For this reason, the GS rule requires owners or operators to demonstrate th at they will have access for these activities in the AoR and corrective action plan at §146.84(b) and testing and mon itoring plan (§146.90).

EPA acknowledges that information beyond publica lly available data may be needed to accurately assess the suitability of a site for GS. EPA believes that a determination about whether or what information may be necessary (for a spec ific GS project) is outsi de of the public record will be site-specific and based on knowledge of th e site, data availability, and data quality. The Director has the discretion to require the owne r or operator to supplem ent publically available

data if there is reason to believe that the incompleteness of available information could compromise USDW protection from endangerment.

In response to the comment suggesting that some of the required information may be available from neighboring land owners, EPA replies that if relevant information about the site exists (e.g., from earlier geologic studies of th e area) and is available and the owner of that information is willing to share it, the Director may, at his/her di scretion, allow its use in the site characterization for the GS project.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21502 Letter Lines: 134 to 157

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones,

4trapping mechanism)

Comment: Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements -The proposed regulations s hould better express the need for characterizing the number, location, and depth of "underg round sources of drinking water." Specifically, Pennsylvania recommends the addition of a subsection under "Geologic Siting Requirements" that calls for a hydrogeologic characterization of USDWs in the area of review. Although a number of technical requirements for such a characterization are presented in the Technical Support Document, "Geologic CO2 Sequestration Technology and Co st Analysis," such visibility is not present in the proposed rule itself. The depth and capacity of the regional groundwater system should be established in this characterization, along with other required details described in the Technical Support Documents. Groundwater flow directions and approxi mate water budgets to estimate deep components of flow will help to assess any injection well impacts to USDWs. Fracturing and faulting in context with the regional groundwater system should be a part of the hydrogeologic charac terization. This would include an uncertainty analysis of current knowledge for the area.

Also, consideration should be given for a recommendation of scales for maps and

cross sections. Scales should be suffici ent to provide enough detail for the "detailed geologic assessment."

-The definition and criteria to ‘show or demonstrate secondary containment of

the reservoir’ does not make sense fo r PA geology. EPA should allow for demonstration approaches that ar e flexible to regional geology.

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance on site ch aracterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendati ons regarding charac terizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and ge ophysical analyses of the inj ection and confining zone. EPA expects that this guidance will a ssist permit writers in evaluating this information. The guidance

can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21503 Letter Lines: 159 to 171

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 CFR 146.84)

Comment: Proposed Area of Review and Co rrective Action Requirements

-PA needs to be assured that the designa ted "Area of Review" is sufficient and inclusive to provide for sound analysis of the impacts and co ntrol of potential environmental impacts to groundwater, wate r supplies, and surface water. State

5complications may arise from property and mineral rights related to permitting and operations of the proposed Class VI regulations based on this definition and its application.

-Area of Review should include a "buffe r zone" surrounding the Area of Review boundary that is adequate to address risk of improper assessment. The size of the boundary should be left to the app licant but should be subject to the Director’s approval.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the unique aspects of GS merit the use of sophisticated computational modeling for delineation of the Ao R, based on site-specifi c features and geology, including the presence of faults, fractures, and ar tificial penetrations to ensure protection of USDWs. EPA believes that computational modeli ng of the AoR prior to injection will provide

the best obtainable estimates of the extent of the CO2 plume over se veral years of active injection. EPA has strengthened the minimum fr equency for the AoR reev aluation from ten years to 5 years (146.84(e)). EPA believes that this re vised frequency addresse s commenters' concerns

about the inherent un certainties in modeling CO2 moveme nt, the emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique nature of CO2 GS.

EPA disagrees that incorporating a buffer zone into the definition of the AoR is necessary,

because EPA believes that the AoR definition incor porates all areas that may be affected by the injection activity, and the iterative AoR reev aluation process require d at 146.84(e) further accounts for uncertainty in the original modeli ng. The Agency has carefully considered all comments on the AoR definition at 146.84(a) and modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic sequestration proj ect where USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of review is deline ated using computationa l modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical prope rties of all phases of the inj ected CO2 stream and is based on

available site characterization, m onitoring, and operational data.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21504 Letter Lines: 173 to 178

Comment Code: 3330 2.2.1.3 Applicability /adequacy of computational models (seeking comment)

Comment: -The proposed rule discusses multiphase modeling and considers them appropriate for hydraulically connected formations be ing used by different operators. Where there are multiple operators injecting in to a formation that is hydraulically connected, rules should require an evalua tion of the chemical reaction of the different injections, unless they are chemically the same, as well as their

interaction with native fluids.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically connected formations should be acc ounted for in the AoR modeling. EPA adds that the owner or operator must demonstrate in the proposed AoR and corrective action plan to the satisfaction of the Director that the modeled AoR will be based on detailed site-specific geologic data collected during the site characterizati on process including consideration of existing

6conditions (e.g., current injection activities). EP A anticipates that, where multiple operators are involved, the Director would not approve modeli ng that does not account for changes that may result from all injection operations in a fo rmation or a series of hydraulically connected formations. EPA is developing guidance on AoR a nd corrective action at GS Class VI sites to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements and proposed AoR and corrective action plans under 146.84. The guidan ce describes EPA's recommended approaches

for the data to be considered in an initial Ao R delineation, how to apply computational modeling to delineate the AoR, performing corrective action at GS sites, and, when appropriate, completing AoR reevaluations. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21505 Letter Lines: 180 to 183

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

Comment: -Proprietary models should not be accept able for use because of the complex nature of the activity and the many u nknowns. Through a transparent process, EPA should maintain minimum modeling sta ndards and assumptions required for approval.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the use of proprietary models should be disallowed. EPA acknowledges that several proprietary m odels are currently, successfully used by petroleum-reservoir engineering professionals as well as in peer-reviewe d studies to model CO2 sequestration.

EPA does not believe that the Agency should de velop a standards and assumptions for modeling the AoR for GS sites. Instead, EPA believes that operators should have the flexibility to select the most appropriate models for the conditions at the GS site and based on the types and amount of data available given the wide range of site-s pecific conditions present at GS sites. EPA is developing guidance on AoR and corr ective action at GS Class VI sites to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating require ments and proposed AoR and corrective action plans under §146.84. The guidance describes EPA's reco mmended approaches for the data to be

considered in an initial AoR delineation, how to apply computat ional modeling to delineate the AoR, performing corrective action at GS sites, and, when appropriate, completing AoR reevaluations. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA adds that its Confidential Business Inform ation requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models.

To ensure that all predictive models used for AoR calculations are meeting the Agency's expectations, EPA plans, every six years, to coll ect 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.

7Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21506 Letter Lines: 185 to 192

Comment Code: 3660 2.2.4.2 Comments opposed to allowing phased corrective action

Comment: -The rule proposes phased corrective acti on (plugging of existing penetrations) after injection begins, but the corrective action is to occur in advance of the CO2 plume. The rule should require a ll corrective action to occur before injection begins, or, if phased correctiv e action is to be approved, then the operator must post a 100 percent performance bond with the permitting agency before the permit is issued. The performance bond is to be in the amount necessary for the permitting agency to immediately complete the corrective action should the owner/operator fail to do so in a timely manner.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that phased correctiv e action is inappr opriate for GS projects, and retains this pr ovision in the final GS regula tion. EPA acknowledges the concern regarding the uncertainty in AoR modeling, and notes that addressi ng this is the intent of the AoR reevaluation process. EPA adds that the fina l rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated every 5 years or when monitoring or operational conditions wa rrant a reevaluation as identified at §146.84(b)(2)(ii).

Allowing phased corrective action is at the discretion of the Direct or. Any state, in developing a primacy package that is concerned that phased corrective action cannot be safely implemented based on the geologic or other c onditions can prohibit Director's discretion to allow phased

corrective action.

EPA clarifies that owners or operators must also demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility for all co rrective action, as specified in §146.85, whether it is performed prior to injection or phased.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21507 Letter Lines: 194 to 198

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operat ing Requirements (40 CFR 146.88)

Comment: Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements

-Appropriate deed restrictions and surf ace controls should be required to be implemented by the owner/operator to prevent another person from compromising the integrity of the confinement zone.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that issues related to de ed restrictions a nd surface controls are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Howe ver, EPA agrees that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically connected formati ons should be accounted for by the Director when determining whether to approve a Class VI permit application. EPA adds that, as part of the AoR evaluation process required at §146.84, the operator must demonstrate, in the

8proposed AoR and corrective action plan, to the sa tisfaction of the Director that the modeled AoR will be based on detailed geologic data coll ected on the site and includes consideration of existing conditions. EPA anticipates that, where multiple operators are involved, the Director would not approve modeling that did not account for the geochemical or pressure changes, including interactions with native fluids that may result from all injections into a formation or a series of hydraulically connected formations.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21508 Letter Lines: 207 to 226

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions

Comment Code: 4543 2.5.2.1 MIT procedures and methods for GS (seeking comment)

Comment: Proposed Mechanical Integr ity Testing Requirements

-"Section 146.89 Mechanical integrity. (a ) A Class VI well has mechanical integrity if:

(1) There is no significant leak in the casing, tubing or packer; and (2) There is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through channels adjacent to the injection well bore.

(b) To evaluate the absence of signifi cant leaks under para graph (a)(1) of

this section, owners or operators must...."

There is no definition of "significant" in the document. A definition should be included that explains how the term will be defined, such as some measurement around a mean, a variance interval, etc. T oo often the term is used without an understanding of its technical meaning. This will also help the permittee to understand what is expectated.

-‘De minimus’ CO2 leakage values should be determined and defined, as well as the acceptable measurement methodol ogy and verification practices.

Individual Response: A properly designed and operated we ll should have no leakage in the casing, tubing, or packer and no fluid movement into a USDW th rough channels adjacent to the

wellbore. While the intent of MITs is to detect these types of pr oblems as early as possible, the goal of the well design and constr uction requirements at §146.86 is th e complete absence of such problems. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the "significant leakage" language in this narrow context is simply to avoid triggering corrective actions for essentially de minimis situations. Determining whether a MIT result should trigger follow-up action is necessarily a case and sitespecific situation; as a result, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to define the term "significant leakage" in the c ontext of MITs. In addition, EPA has not defined this term for purposes of other injection well classes and this has not been shown to hinder permitting authorities' and owners or operators' ability to assess whether injection wells have adequate mechanical integrity. EPA believes that this appro ach allows states flexib ility, will not interfere with the implementation of existing UIC program s, and maintains protection of USDWs from

9endangerment.

In keeping with its adaptive rule making approach, the Agency plan s to collect and review data every six years on early GS proj ects, including MIT da ta, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requ irements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21509 Letter Lines: 228 to 232

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90)

Comment: Proposed Plume and Pressure Fr ont Monitoring Requirements

-EPA should specifically identify (by tec hnology) what type of monitoring would be necessary and applicable to verify c ontainment of the CO2 and any failures away from the injection wells themselves.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that prescribing specific technologies to be used in all cases for GS would be appropriate given the variability in sites. Ra ther EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, includi ng proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and reco mmended approaches for implem enting a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testin g of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during ope ration, groundwater quali ty monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface ai r monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verificat ion, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in

the docket for the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21510 Letter Lines: 234 to 238

Comment Code: 4640 2.6.4 Pressure fall-off testing (seeking comment)

Comment: -Depending on the geology surrounding the c ontainment formation, it is possible

that the CO2 could be absorbed/adsorbe d by some of the surrounding formations. This could cause a drop in pressure not di rectly associated with leakage. EPA

should determine or allow for a maximum allowable pressure drop, or correction value, dependent on the a ppropriate surrounding geology.

Individual Response: EPA believes that pressure fall-off testing is necessary for GS wells.

10Pressure fall-off tests are designe d to verify that modeled proj ections of reservoir pressure decline agree with measured pressure decline profiles. These tests can be useful in AoR

calculations and reevaluations and may also indicate mischaracter ization of site geology and the presence of leakage pathways. EPA therefore believ es that pressure fall-off testing is necessary every five years at a minimum, and the fina l GS regulation includes this requirement at §146.90(f). Pressure fall-off tests may be conducted in conjunction with other well performance tests (i.e., mechanical integrity testing) to ensure safe and effective operations.

EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitori ng at GS sites, which will address pressure fall-off testing. The guidance also descri bes available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing a nd monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MITs, injecti on well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21511 Letter Lines: 240 to 242

Comment Code: 4650 2.6.5 CO2 plume and pressure fr ont tracking (seeking comment)

Comment: -EPA should identify specific technologi es or processes that will enable operators or owners to veri fy that the CO2 is moving th e way in which the models

indicated.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that prescribing specific technologies to be used in all cases for GS would be appropriate given the variability in sites. Rather, EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and reco mmended approaches for implem enting a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testin g of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during ope ration, groundwater quali ty monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface ai r monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verificat ion, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in

the docket for the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21512 Letter Lines: 244 to 244

Comment Code: 5800 2.13 Comments on emergency and re medial response (40 CFR 146.94)

Comment: -EPA should identify existing methods for remediation of a rogue CO2 plume.

11Individual Response: EPA clarifies that determining appropriate remedial actions and mitigation technologies that may be employed at a GS site is site- and event-specific and will depend on a variety of factors, in cluding the nature of any moveme nt of CO2 or other fluids, the presence of USDWs, and what, if any, impacts may have resulted. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergenc y and remedial response plans for GS sites.

EPA clarifies that, if owners or operators obtain evidence that USDWs may be endangered or that leakage is occurring, owners or operator s must cease injection, ta ke all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any re lease, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94(b)).

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21513 Letter Lines: 246 to 265

Comment Code: 4720 2.7.2 Operational record keeping and reporting

Comment: Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

-The chemistry of the gas stream will be affected by the fuel source and the operating conditions of the capture and pur ification systems. These data, while not the responsibility of th e operator, can have signi ficant impacts on the gas constituents. Semi-annual reports will not be timely in identifying these impacts. The operator should require reports from the ga s source, which can be forwarded to EPA as part of the semi -annual report, or as an additional submittal between the semi-annual reports. Once parameters of operations are known, the reports could be waived or modified. A specific example of a potential concern: Power Plant A receives a modification to its air permit from a non-primacy state. The modification a llows the burning of petcoke, which commonly has a high vanadium content. Va nadium oxides can form on operating surfaces, affecting capture system effici encies, or possible modifying down-hole behavior. This type of change coul d greatly affect the overall system.

-Also, operating performance of the gas suppliers’ systems should be monitored. Changes in characteristics such as pr essure drop, filter cloth efficiencies, increases or changes in dilution air, et c., can affect the quality of the CO2

stream.

Individual Response: EPA is retaining the semi-annual reporti ng requirement in the final rule at §146.91(a) in order to ensure that permitting author ities can maintain proper oversight and track compliance of GS projects, particularly in the early stages of rule implementation and deployment of GS technologies. The Agency al so clarifies that pe rmitting authorities may choose to require more frequent reporti ng, at the discretion of the Director.

EPA cannot reply specifically as to whether any change to the CO2 stream or the fuel source would warrant a change in the permit. However, it is possible that a permit may have to be modified for these reasons. Section 144.39(a) iden tifies causes for modification of permits that would invoke the public notification procedures at Part 124, including : alterations or additions to the facility; availability of additional inform ation; new regulations; and compliance schedule

12modifications. EPA added text to §144.39(a)(5) th at permit modifications would be required if

the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testi ng and monitoring results.

If the source of the injectate changes, the Direct or must evaluate whethe r this change warrants a modification of the permit or is a minor modifica tion based on site-specific information about the injection project, including geologic informati on about the injection and confining zones,

formation fluids, and the well's construction. If th e injectate from the new source were within the capacity of the facility, this would be consid ered a minor modification per §144.41(h); otherwise the Director must initiate a public proce ss regarding the change in the permit.

Please see the final rule and th e discussion of testing and moni toring for GS projects in the preamble for additional information.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21514 Letter Lines: 267 to 282

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

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financia l responsibility requirements (40 CFR 146.85)

Comment: Proposed Financial Responsibility a nd Long-Term Care Requirements

-There is no language in the proposed re gulation that covers compensation to homeowners for the degradati on or loss of a water supply.

-EPA should consider how Class VI wells and associated GS projects could impact the ownership of mineral righ ts in formations that are penetrated en route to the CO2 storage reservoir. Some sugges tions include a mechanism to require disclosure of mineral rights that may be impacted by a sequestration project and how such ownership issues will be resolved.

-If phased corrective action (plugging of existing penetrations) is to be approved, then the operator must post a 100 percent performance bond with the permitting agency before the permit is issu ed. The performance bond is to be in the amount necessary for the permitting ag ency to immediately complete the

corrective action should the owner/operator fail to timely do so.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the goal of the fi nancial responsibil ity requirements is

to ensure that financial resources are avai lable to prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties. EPA w ould also like to highlig ht the emergency and remedial response plan required under the rule. Th is includes the cost to perform any necessary responses or remediation to address potential USDW endangerment. See the preamble to the final rule for more details on the emerge ncy and remedial response requirements.

13EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. EPA recognizes that many of these issues are the purview of the states and any of these issues as they relate to GS will need to be addressed though state regulations. The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure that where GS technologies are deployed, GS is performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA agrees with the comment on phased correc tive action. The GS rule, at §146.85(c), requires the owner or operator to have a detailed written estimate, in cu rrent dollars, of the cost of: performing corrective action on well s in the AoR, plugging the injection well(s), PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response. A cost estimate must be prepared separately for

each of these activities and be ba sed on the costs to the owner or operator of hiring a third party (who is neither a parent nor a subsidiary of th e owner or operator) to pe rform the activities. EPA clarifies that owners or operators will need to demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility

for all corrective action at the time of Class VI well permitting, before the onset of injection operations. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21515 Letter Lines: 284 to 299

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

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: Primacy for Class VI Wells

-There are no statutory limitations to EPA granting primacy to states for individual classes of underground inj ection wells; however, EPA typically refuses to do so by policy. Pennsylvania requests that EPA allow separable primacy for the proposed Class VI UIC well program, to secure that option. Resources to conduct the program conti nue to be the issue for any state considering primacy of the UIC program . Federal appropriations have been stagnant for over a decade at $10 m illion for the national program. Pennsylvania is concerned that EPA may not be able to secure the funding necessary to develop a r obust Class VI well program that includes on-the-ground resources for non-primacy states.

-Adequate resources must be made availabl e to effectively develop and implement a program for this added category of UIC well that is this significantly

different from othe r UIC well types.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that states should be al lowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and wi ll allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past , EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications

for individual well classes unde r Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also ne ed to accept responsibilit y for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s

14and was intended to encourage States to take full responsibility fo r UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, given the potential for CCS (encom passing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a na tional priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take res ponsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more co mprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA in to a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state leve l (but outside UIC author ity) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstandi ng policy of discouraging "partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Cl ass under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for pa rtial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Cla ss VI wells independent of other well classes provided they devel op regulations that are at leas t as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspec tion, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and w ill be able to develop a primacy application for

Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to en sure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities an d protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely w ith the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and traini ng 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: 0130 Comment ID: 21516 Letter Lines: 301 to 306

Comment Code: 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed durati on of Class VI permits (seeking comment)

15Comment: Proposed Duration of Class VI Injection Permit

-Permit renewal or review requirement s should be added to the proposed rulemaking. The permit renewal or review process allows for extra permit transparency and regulatory authority to monitor and safeguard the operation. Pennsylvania recommends permit renewa l or review every 10 years.

Individual Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site car e period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to

determine whether it should be modified, re voked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operato rs’ iterative reev aluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reev aluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and reme dial response plan th roughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In

no case can reviews occur less often than once ev ery five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preven ting endangerment to USDWs.

EPA adds that, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director be lieves based on monitoring or operational data that the project may e ndanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) requiring permit modifica tions if the Director determ ines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Direct or may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41 depending on the ex tent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications und er 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements

under 40 CFR Part 124.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being

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

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21517 Letter Lines: 308 to 314

Comment Code: 2160 1.6.3 Unmineable coal seams

Comment: Target Geologic Formations for Geologic Sequestration of CO2

-EPA states in their documents (examp les: pages 43502 to 43503 and 43512) that there are coal formations too deep to ever be mined. This is not true in

16Pennsylvania. All coal formations in Pennsylvania are at depths that are technologically capable of being mined. Economics will dictate whether or not these deeper coal formations will be mined.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment, and clarifies that the use of coal mines for anything other than GS is outsi de the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21518 Letter Lines: 316 to 341

Comment Code: 4430 2.4.4.3.3 Injection into coal seams above USDWs (seeking comment)

Comment: -DEP and DCNR agree that EPA should precl ude the injection of CO2 for long-term storage into coal seams where they are above the lowermost USDW.

-There are safety issues associated w ith injecting CO2 below existing coal reserves. Uplifting pressure effects from in jection below coal seams, or within deeper coal formations, may rupture flooded abandoned mines situated above active coal mines and will also drive coal bed methane upward into overlying active mines. There is also the safety issue of having an injection well(s) penetrate through coal before it is mine d, which could be encountered during mining with devastating effects, both from injected CO2 release and from sparks from mining equipment encountering drill casing, and igniting co al bed methane. Pennsylvania regulates against this occu rrence, with respect to oil and gas wells drilled through unmined coal form ations, by the issuan ce of a pillar permit. The interaction of coal mines and wells is a major safety concern addressed by PA Chapter 78 Oil & Gas Wells . This regulation states that no permit will be issued for a well at a lo cation that would, in the opinion of DEP, endanger the safety of persons wo rking in a coal mine. Pennsylvania regulations do not address coal mine safe ty issues related to water wells or underground injection wells.

-In drilling through an unmined coal forma tion resource or gas or oil reservoir

formation, what area and distances from th e injection drill path are considered safe for development? In Pennsylvania, when oil and gas wells are developed through a coal formation resource, a pillar permit is obtained which defines the area of safety within the undeveloped re source formation surrounding the drill path.

Individual Response: The final GS rule does not categorica lly preclude or prohibit injection into any type of formation, including coal se ams. Instead, the requirements are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endange rment through proper siting, well construction, operation, monitoring, and PISC at all sites selected for GS.

EPA recognizes that some types of formations, such as coal s eams and basalts, are typically shallow and above the lowermost USDW. EPA exp ects that most injection wells conducting GS in these shallow formations will be permitted as Class VI wells and such wells will be issued

17waivers, provided that their owners or operators can meet all of the requirements for an injection depth waiver at §146.95 and demonstr ate that such injection can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protec tions are in place. The Class V experimental technology well classification, may, in some instan ces be an appropriate permitting alternative. This decision should be informed through a di scussion between the injection well owner or operator and the Director to determine the purpose and proper design of the well.

EPA adds that all decisions regarding injection de pth waivers are at the Di rector's discretion. If a Director believes that injection depth waivers are not appropriate for a specific site or for a category of formations within th eir state, the Director has th e authority to not permit such injections.

EPA is developing guidance on the injection depth waiver process. The guidance describes the recommended approach an owner or operator ma y follow when submitting a waiver application, processing waiver applications by the UIC a nd PWSS Program Director s, and additional processes that may apply to projects that have been issued waivers. This guidance will be

available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

For additional information on the waiver approa ch, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the No tice of Data Availability and Request for

Comment.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21519 Letter Lines: 343 to 351

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: How Would This Proposal Affect Existing Injection Wells Under the UIC Program?

-DEP and DCNR are concerned about the upgrading requirements necessary to grandfather existing EOR wells into th e Class VI program. Historically, grandfathered installations su ch as wells have not been constructed to current standards and may not have adequate mate rials to meet the new requirements for injection. The standard of pr oof to demonstrate that an old well is adequate to be “grandfathered” should be high. The ri sk of needing remediation outweighs the inconvenience of upgrading an existing injection well.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, particularly given that the convert ed well will be used for a substa ntially different process, which involves increased reservoir pr essures associated with larg e volumes of stored CO2 and corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. Th e final GS rule provides that the construction of these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS rule that owners or operators seeking to c onvert existing wells for long term storage must demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathe red wells were engineered and constructed meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure prot ection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the constructi on reuirements are

18grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical integrity testing, etc.) must be met fo llowing a determination under §146.81(c).

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21520 Letter Lines: 353 to 360

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO 2; purity standards for CO2

Comment: Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream

-EPA should specify a CO2 purity require ment to prevent the inclusion of contaminants (example: hydrogen sulfide, sulfurous and nitrous oxides), the

inclusion of which would not classi fy the CO2 stream as a hazardous waste/substance but could potentially endanger USDW and/or enhance

corrosiveness. DEP understands that this s ubpart does not apply to a CO2 stream

that meets the definition of a hazar dous waste under 40 CFR Part 261.

Individual Response: EPA understands that many CO2 str eams may be relatively pure, and

research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low.

However, these estimates are based on limited in formation, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the va rious types of CO2 streams. The concentrations

of minor and trace elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies.

The GS rule does not set generic purity standa rds for CO2 injectate streams (e.g., a percent CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresses the quality and quantity of impurities by requiring owners or operators to submit information on the sour ce of the CO2 and its physical and chemical properties. Specifically, the GS rule requires the owner or operator to subm it data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatib ility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confini ng zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This info rmation can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic

formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces orthe dissolution of formation

minerals.

Since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), prohibits CO2 st reams that meet the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, injection of a CO2 str eam that is determined to be a hazardous waste may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21521 Letter Lines: 362 to 367

Comment Code: 1616 1.3.1.3 Fluid movement

Comment: Additional Issues

19-Fluids could be brought to the surf ace during the drilling, completion and operation of the Class VI well. In the ev ent formational fluids are brought to the surface during the sequestration proce ss, appropriate measures must be taken. The regulation should addre ss the issue of these fluids.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS including the potential that CO2 injection for GS could cause fluid movement, which can endanger USDWs. The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injectio n site care, and site closure. Suitable GS sites must have confining zones

that are free of transmissive faults or fractures and are of sufficie nt areal extent and integrity to contain the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation fluids. The formations must allow injection at proposed maximum pressures a nd volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the confining zone(s ), as required at §146.83(a)(2).

The GS rule requires owners or operators to su bmit extensive data about a proposed GS site to identify (and eliminate) sites with a potential for unacceptable fluid movement. Information to be submitted and evaluated at §146.82 includes data on the porosity, permeability, and other information regarding the suit ability of the confining zone ; the location of any known or suspected faults; subsurface geochemistry; and th e location of, depth of, and other information regarding any perforatio ns that may extend into the confining zone. EPA believes that this information, in conjunction with AoR modeli ng required at §146.84, will help identify the potential for brine migration as a result of pressu re displacement. Based on this information, the Director and the owner or operator can identify ways to mitigate this risk pr ior to injection, or, if necessary, the Director can deny the permit appl ication. During injecti on operations, operators must extensively monitor ground water quality and pressure changes to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or im purities in the subsurf ace as specified in §146.90. In the event that fluid movement endangers a US DW, owners or operators must also develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to address any adverse e ffects associated with the GS operation as specified in §146.94 and ma intain financial responsibility to address contamination as specified in §146.85.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21522 Letter Lines: 369 to 372

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

Comment: -DEP believes that the CO2 for geologic sequestration is a residual waste if it does not otherwise qualify as a hazardous waste. Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act and residual waste regulati ons define disposal to include the injection of a residual waste a nd require a permit for disposal.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule itself does not change the status of CO2 as

a solid waste or hazardous waste under RCRA. Unde r the final GS rule, owners or operators will

need to determine whether the CO2 stream is a hazardous waste under EPA’s RCRA regulations, and if so, any injection of the hazardous CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well.

20Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 21523 Letter Lines: 374 to 381

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: In conclusion, the Commonwealth of Penns ylvania maintains that this proposed rule represents a good initial effort to address issues related to the protection of USDW, while allowing fo r the potential deve lopment of carbon capture and storage. Pennsylvania is inte rested in participating in the process of addressing the questions, comments and concerns identified in this document. DEP and DCNR appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed regulation and look forward to assisting the EPA in concentrating on some of the remaining

issues.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and belie ves that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technol ogy in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program , under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating inje ction of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation 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 potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic

formations.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to dete rmine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requiremen ts are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to pr oceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other

research as it becomes available.

Letter ID: 0130 Comment ID: 25077 Letter Lines: 200 to 205

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90)

Comment: -Language is included in the proposed rule detailing how the injection well will be monitored during its operation, but th ere is no language included that regulates the monitoring of areas surroundi ng the injection well. There is also concern about how deep and how close to the capping (sealing) formation the surrounding monitoring wells and other wells should be allowed to approach the capping formation.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the final GS re gulation, at §146.90(g )(1), requires all

2122 GS project owners or operators to monitor for pressure changes in the injection zone. Specific monitoring locations will be id entified by the owner and operato r and approved by the Director in the monitoring and testing plan, but EPA e xpects that monitoring wells will be placed throughout the AoR. EPA believes that pressure monitoring in the in jection zone is necessary to track the development and movement of the pressure front and CO2 plume and eliminates the need for monitoring in the locati ons mentioned by the commenter.

Pressure monitoring within the injection zone is also necessary because any such monitoring above the confining zone would not detect moveme nt of the pressure front unless a breach of the confining zone occurs. EPA believes that monitori ng using wells in the inje ction zone (i.e., that penetrate the confining zone) can be safely performed if the wells are constructed to prevent flow between the injection zone a nd USDWs or other layers above the confining zone. Such construction technologies exist and have been us ed in the oil and gas industry for years. EPA believes that the benefits of monitoring in the injection formation outweigh the manageable risk of those monitoring wells serving as conduits for fluid movement. EPA is developing guidance

on well construction that will include recommen dations for monitoring well construction. The guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA adds that owners or operators may consid er performing additional pressure monitoring in

wells that are above the confin ing zone (e.g., in the same wells used to perform ground water quality monitoring required at §146.90(d)) to provide additional verification that no pressure changes are occurring above the confining zone due to CO2 leakage. Monitoring also identifies needed remedial actions, provides inputs for Ao R reevaluation modeling, and targets additional geochemical and surface monitoring needs. Knowledge of the location of the CO2 plume and the associated pressure front will assure the public th at GS projects are proceeding according to plan, provide sufficient information to the owner or op erator and Director, or allow for appropriate actions to address any indication that USDWs may be endangered.

EPA is developing guidance on testing and mon itoring to assist owne rs or operators and Directors in evaluating requi rements under §146.90, including pr oposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies a nd recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-ope rational geophysical l ogging and testing of injection wells, MITs, injecti on well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, a nd soil gas and surface air monitoring, which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. Th e guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/u ic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices ma nual entitled "Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geol ogic Formations" (DOE /NETL-311/081508); this

manual is included in the docke t for the final GS rule.