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.

# DNR

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T



### 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 

### 20460

Docket 10 #: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Governor

Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director

Docket Title: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Federal Requirements for

Class VI Injection Wells for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

- Proposed

Rule

To Whom It May Concern:

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is pleased to have, the opportunity to offer

comment regarding the above referenced proposed rule to develop an environmentally protective program for the safe storage of C02 through carbon sequestration

Although final details of a comprehensive carbon management and reduction program are yet to be finalized by Congress, it is a virtual certainty that such a program is inevitable. One

of the most significant components of a long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions will of necessity involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). We agree with those who believe that

the geologic storage (GS) of C02 in underground formations is a key CCS technology that

must be developed and deployed in a timely manner if we are to achieve any significant

reduction of carbon emissions.

Accompanying the promotion of this new technology must be the development of a comprehensive and predictable regulatory program. The regulatory program must provide

not only for the protection of environmental, health, and safety concerns arising from the use of such methods but also establish·a consistent, transparent, and reliable regulatory

framework to support and encourage the responsible development of this new technology. By doing so, industry, the investment community, and the public can have confidence in the technology and support its use thereby allowing our economies to grow by providing a more

secure energy future.

The proposed rules published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are an important step in the development of a comprehensive program to regulate the GS of CO 2

. While other options may have been available to both the**stat~~s** and to the federal government to effectively establish a sound, reliable regulatory framework, we believe that

EPA's decision to propose rules to regulate GS of C02 under the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program will help to ensure that consistent reqUirements are applied throughout the United States. The UIC Program also provides states desiring to fully

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Printed on Recycled Paperregulate the GS of CO 2 with a clearly defined path for obtaining primacy under section 

### 1422

of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class VI wells as proposed under this rulemaking by EPA. Obtaining primacy will be an important component of our broader

commitment to promote newer and cleaner markets for Indiana coal, oil, and natural gas while at the same time contributing to our nation's energy independence and to a cleaner

environment.

Indiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources making it a prime location for the

use of GS methods. Among these resources are the following: oil and gas reservoirs

suitable for both enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term storage; unmineable coal

seams for long-term storage and the potential for the production of coal bed methane (CH 4 ) displaced by the injection of CO 2 into these coals; deep saline reservoirs (Ordovician St.

Peter Sandstone and Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone) suitable for long-term storage; and organic-rich shales (primarily Devonian New Albany) for long-term storage and the potential
for enhanced production of CH4.

Our state also has a long history of the regulation of oil and gas production since development of oil and gas first began in 1886 with the discovery of the Trenton Field.

Indiana also has primacy under the UIC Program for Class II wells and the (IDNR), Division

of Oil and Gas has been effectively administering that program since 

### 1991. Our regulatory experience also includes the permitting and oversight of underground natural gas storage
facilities as well as facilities for the underground storage of liquefied petroleum gases.

Much of the technology and methodologies to be employed with the siting, drilling, construction, operation, testing, and eventually with the plugging and abandonment of Class

VI wells, have been derived from the oil and gas industry. Whilt9 there are differences

between many aspects of Class VI injection wells when compared to Class II injection wells

or underground natural gas and petroleum liquid storage wells, we bHlieve there are far more similarities, including such aspects as reservoir selection, inj ' 9ction and withdrawal
parameters, unauthorized releases, and pressure limitations. Accordingly, we believe that
Indiana is well prepared to effectively administer a regulatory program for the long-term storage of CO 2 in underground formations once the appropriate state statutes and regulations are established.

Beyond establishing regUlations to govern the actual process for managing the injection of
CO 2 into underground formations, there are other important maUers that must also be

addressed before carbon capture and geologic storage (CCGS) operations can be developed. These matters are clearly beyond the scope of the regulations proposed by EPA.

Included are:

1. The creation of a legal framework for a storage facility operator to obtain control of

the reservoir and associated pore space to be used for C02 storage. The right to use reservoirs and associated pore space is a private property right that must be acquired
from the owner of the property. Included With this framework must be a method for amalgamating or consolidating the rights in order to provide for the orderlydevelopment of a long-term storage project. Given that these actions pertain to the acquisition or control of private property rights, they are functions to be established by state law.

2. The establishment of a viable framework for managing long-term property rights, monitoring, and liability issues that may arise after the closure period specified in the

Class VI proposed rules. Consideration may be given to a process for the transfer of ownership of the storage facility from the operator to the state or another third-party entity who assume the role of "caretaker" for the management of long-term liabilities.

Included also should be the creation of a state-administered trust fund or other sound long-term funding mechanism that would ensure that sufficient resources are available to remedy any adverse conditions that might arise' after the release of the facility operator from further liability.

We believe that these issues are most appropriately managed by individual states who, like Indiana, are interested in promoting the development of CCGS operations.

Indiana is a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). In
2002, the IOGCC established a Geological C02 Sequestration Task Force chaired by

Lawrence Bengal, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Its membership initially included representatives from IOGCC member states and**intE~rnational** affiliate provinces, state and provincial oil and gas agencies, DOE, DOE-sponsored Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, the Association of American State Geologists (AASG), and the oil and natural gas industry. Later on the Task Force added representatives from EPA, and the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) attended as observers. This Task Force engaged in a thorough examination of the technical, policy, and regulatory issues related to the safe

and effective storage of C02 in subsurface geological media (oil and natural gas fields,

coal seams, and deep saline formations) for both enhanced hydrocarbon recovery and long-term C02 storage.

The products of the Task Force efforts were the following two reports:

1. "Final Report" for DOE Aware No. DE-FC26-03NT 41994, Amendment No.

AOOO, dated January 24, 2005. This report contained an assessment of the

current regulatory framework applicable to carbon capture and geologic storage

and recommended regulatory gUidelines and guidance documents for the states

and provinces.

2. "Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Structures - A Legal and Regulatory

Guide for States and Provinces" dated September 25,2007. A thorough

assessment of property rights issues relating to the underground space used for CCGS, and an overview of model general rules and regulations for CCGS along

with a Model Statute and a Model General Rules and Regulations for CCGS

were included in this report.

We believe these two reports present the most practical and workable models for the regulation of CCGS and we encourage EPA to strongly consider them as it continues its

process of finalizing the Class VI CCGS rule. We have not included them as attachments to

our comments as we know they have already been submitted to EPA.Additionally, we also know that detailed comments on the above refmenced rules have been prepared and submitted to EPA on behalf of the 10GCC.**IDNF~** supports the 10GCC

comments and strongly encourages EPA to take them into considE!ration as the final rules

are being considered. Except for a few specific comments on topics that we believe do

warrant extra emphasis, we do not think it necessary to restate every issue already

addressed through the 10GCC comments.

These following comments respond to just a few of the broader policy and regulatory issues
for which EPA specifically requested comments. Our comments 'follow the same outline

used in the preamble to the proposed rule published on July 25, 2008\.

Section II- What Is EPA Proposing?

Subsection I -Is Injected CO 2 Considered 

### a Hazardous Waste Under RCRA 

### ?

Comment: EPA has attempted to address this very important consideration by defining "carbon dioxide stream" in the proposed rule in such a way that those CO 2 streams which exhibit hazardous characteristics would not be permitted under the proposed Class VI well classification but rather must be permitted and regulated as Class I wells instead. We are in agreement with those who believe that although captured 

### C02 will contain some impurities, in those rare instances where

concentrations could potentially be viewed as exhibiting RCRA hazardous characteristics, such impurities should be able to be removed by appropriate treatment

methods prior to their storage in underground formations. While it is not possible to ignore the obligations and liabilities of waste generators under RCRA

, any perception

that CO 2 streams could exhibit these characteristics and therefore require their management as hazardous wastes would have a very chilling effect on the widespread deployment of CCS and GS operations. We would prefer that instead of referring to CO 2 streams as "waste", they should be viewed as an important resource
to be managed accordingly.

Section III

- Proposed Regulatory Alternatives

Subsection A

- Proposed Alternative

Comment: Of the four alternatives considered by EPA, we appreciate the fact that

the highly specific requirements approach of Alternative 4 was not chosen. However,

even with the selected Alternative 3, we believe that EPA still must provide some of

the flexibility that was to be considered under Alternative 2. We are somewhat

troubled by EPA's statement that it "did not select this alternative (Alternative 2)

because it is not tailored to meet the unique challenges of long-term C02 storage.
While this option includes flexibility for permit authorities to add reqUirements, EPA

cannot be certain that the necessary adjustments would be made."States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar programs
have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe

do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the long-term issues associated with

CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be

addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should

consider implementing rules which afford states with the**grE~atest** flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive includEl:

1. Well casing and cementing standards.



### 2. Prescriptive requirements for degradation-resistant well construction materials,

such as acid-resistant cements and corrosion resistant casing.

3. Any requirement that down-hole shut off valves be installed in GS wells.

4. Blanket prohibition of GS in zones above the lowermost USDW.

5. Any requirement to establish minimum injection depth requirements.

6. Any provision requiring the use of down-hole tracer systems.

7. Fixed 50-year post-injection time period.

Section V - How Will States, Territories, and Tribes Obtain 

## ule Program Primacy for

Class VI Wells?

Comment: Indiana strongly encourages EPA to allow states to seek primacy for the

Class VI program independent of other UIC well classes.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.

Herschel McDivitt, Director Division of Oil and Gas IDNR, at (317) 232-4058 or hmcvivitt@dnr.in.gov. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely, 

# ;;;;?«r

...............

Robert 

### E.

Director

Indiana Department of Natural

Resources

cc: Tom Easterly Commissioner -IDEM
Herschel McDivitt, Director Division of Oil & GasLetter ID: 0236

Commenter: Robert E. Carter Jr. Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23199 Letter Lines: 36 to 64

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: Although final details of a comprehensiv e carbon management and reduction program are yet to be finalized by Congress, it is a virtual ce rtainty that such a program is inevitable. One of the most significant components of a long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions will of necessity involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). We agree with those who believe that the geologic storage (GS) of C02 in underground formations is a key CCS technology that must be developed and deployed in a timely manner if we are to achieve any significa nt reduction of

carbon emissions.

Accompanying the promotion of this new t echnology must be the development of a comprehensive and predictable regulatory program. The regulatory program must provide not only for the pr otection of environmental, health, and safety concerns arising from the use of such me thods but also establish a consistent, transparent, and reliable regulatory framework to support and encourage the responsible development of this new technology. By doing so, industry, the investment community, and the public can have confidence in the technology and support its use thereby allowing our economies to grow by providing a more secure energy future.

The proposed rules published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are an important step in the development of a co mprehensive program to regulate the GS of CO2. While other options may have been available to both the states and to the federal government to effectively establish a sound, reliable regulatory framework, we believe that EPA's decision to propose rules to regulate GS of C02 under the Underground Injection Control (UIC ) Program will help to ensure that consistent requirements are applied throughout the United States. The UIC Program also provides states desiring to fully regulate the GS of CO2 with a clearly defined path for obtaining pr imacy under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to s eek primacy for the regulation of Class

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is important to establishing a foundation for

further advances in the field of CO2 GS. EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty: the final GS requirements provide a level of cer tainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process at §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS pr ojects at §146.90), and the post-i njection site care process at

1§146.93). For additional information on these requir ements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in th e preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23200 Letter Lines: 64 to 98

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

Comment: Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to s eek primacy for the regulation of Class VI wells as proposed under this rulemaki ng by EPA. Obtaining primacy will be an important component of our broader comm itment to promote newer and cleaner markets for Indiana coal, oil, and na tural gas while at the same time contributing to our nation's energy indepe ndence and to a cleaner environment.

Indiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources making it a prime location for the use of GS methods. Among these resources are the following: oil and gas reservoirs suitable for both enha nced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term storage; unmineable coal seams for long- term storage and the potential for the production of coal bed methane (CH4) disp laced by the injection of CO2 into these coals; deep saline reservoirs (Or dovician St. Peter Sands tone and Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone) suitable for long-term storage; and organic-rich shales (primarily Devonian New Albany) for l ong-term storage and the potential for enhanced production of CH4.

Our state also has a long history of th e regulation of oil and gas production since development of oil and gas first be gan in 1886 with the discovery of the Trenton Field. Indiana also has primacy under the UIC Program for Class II wells and the (IDNR), Division of Oil and Gas ha s been effectively administering that program since 1991. Our regulatory experi ence also includes the permitting and oversight of underground natural gas storag e facilities as well as facilities for the underground storage of liquefied petroleum gases.

Much of the technology and methodologies to be employed with the siting, drilling, construction, operat ion, testing, and eventually with the plugging and abandonment of Class VI wells, have been derived from the oil and gas industry. While there are differences between many aspects of Class VI injection wells when compared to Class II injection wells or und erground natural gas and petroleum liquid storage wells, we believe there are far more similarities, including such aspects as reservoir selection, injection and withdrawal parameters, unauthorized releases, and pressure limitations. Accordingly, we believe that Indiana is well prepared to effectively administer a regulatory program for the long-term storage of CO2 in underground formations once the appropriate state statutes and regulations are established.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of exis ting State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies th at have been regulating Class II UIC wells for

2decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These ag encies already understa nd the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issu es related to CO2 injection, s ubsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under

section 1422 of SDWA.

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infr astructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral right s, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

Throughout the GS regulatory development process, EPA has made it a priority to engage States and State organizations. EPA work s with State co-regulators on regul atory issues related to GS – including state representation on the GS regulatory developmen t workgroup. The Agency has

also conducted a series of stakeholder and tec hnical workshops, and public hearings, and EPA met with national organizations including the Ground Water Protection Co uncil, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the Ameri can Association of St ate Geologists. EPA

values coordination with States and will continue an open dialogue as the Agency moves forward in the regulatory development process.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23201 Letter Lines: 100 to 113

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

Comment: Beyond establishing regulations to govern the actual process for managing the injection of CO2 into underground formati ons, there are other important matters

that must also be addressed before ca rbon capture and geologi c storage (CCGS) operations can be developed. These matters are clearly beyond the scope of the regulations proposed by EPA. Included are:

1. The creation of a legal framework for a storage facility operator to obtain control of the reservoir and associated por e space to be used for C02 storage. The right to use reservoirs and associ ated pore space is a private property right that must be acquired from the ow ner of the property. In cluded with this framework must be a method for amalgamating or consolidating the rights in order to provide for the orderly development of a long-term storage project. Given that these actions pertain to the acqui sition or control of private property rights, they are functions to be established by state law.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking, which focuses on ensuring consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations

3across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EP A clarifies that these issues are under the purview of states a nd any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though stat e regulations.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23202 Letter Lines: 115 to 128

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: 2. The establishment of a viable fram ework for managing long-term property rights, monitoring, and liability issues th at may arise after the closure period specified in the Class VI proposed rule s. Consideration may be given to a process for the transfer of ownership of the storage facility from the operator

to the state or another thir d-party entity who assume the role of "caretaker" for the management of long-term liabili ties. Included also should be the

creation of a state-administered trus t fund or other sound long-term funding

mechanism that would ensure that suffici ent resources are available to remedy any adverse conditions that might arise after the release of the facility operator from further liability.

We believe that these issues are most a ppropriately managed by individual states who, like Indiana, are interested in promoting the development of CCGS operations.

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owne r or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or opera tor will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

4Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. Furt hermore, EPA does not have the authority under the SDWA to create a financial mechanism for Class VI wells. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23203 Letter Lines: 130 to 169

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: Indiana is a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC).

In 2002, the IOGCC established a Geological C02 Sequestration Task Fo rce chaired by Lawrence Bengal, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Its membership initially included representatives from I OGCC member states and internationalaffiliate provinces, state and provincial oil and gas agencies, DOE, DOEsponsored Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, the Association of American State Geologists (AASG), and th e oil and natural gas industry. Later on the Task Force added representatives from EPA, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attended as observers. This Task Force e ngaged in a thorough examination of the technical, policy, and re gulatory issues related to the safe and effective storage of C02 in subsurf ace geological media (oil and natural gas fields, coal seams, and deep saline formations) for both enhanced hydrocarbon recovery and long-te rm C02 storage.

The products of the Task Force effo rts were the following two reports:

1. "Final Report" for DOE Aware No. DE-F C26-03NT41994, Amendment No. AOOO, dated January 24, 2005. This report contained an a ssessment of the current regulatory framework applicable to carbon capture and geologic storage and recommended regulatory guidelines and guidance docu ments for the states and provinces.

2. "Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Structures - A Legal and Regulatory Guide for States and Provinces" dated September 25,2007. A thorough assessment of property rights issues relating to th e underground space used for CCGS, and an overview of model general rules and regulations for CCGS along with a Model Statute and a Model General Rules and Regula tions for CCGS were included in this

report.

We believe these two reports present the mo st practical and workable models for the regulation of CCGS and we encourag e EPA to strongly consider them as it continues its process of fi nalizing the Class VI CCGS ru le. We have not included them as attachments to our comments as we know they have already been submitted

to EPA.

5Additionally, we also know that detailed comments on th e above referenced rules have been prepared and submitted to EPA on behalf of the IOGCC. IDNR supports the IOGCC comments and strongl y encourages EPA to take them into consideration as the final rules are being considered. Except for a few specific comments on topics that we believe do warrant extra emphasis, we do not think it necessary to restate every issue already addr essed through the IOGCC comments.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA a dds that it has reviewed the IOGCC's reports and that information provi ded by IOGCC throughout the rulemaking process has informed many technical aspects of the rule . EPA appreciates the input and effort that IOGCC has provided, as well as those from othe r state and private st akeholder consortia.

Please see the remainder of EPA' s responses to this comment and IOGCC’s 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: 0236 Comment ID: 23204 Letter Lines: 176 to 193

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

Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate ris k, don't stigmatize CO2

Comment: Section II-What Is EPA Proposing? Subsection I -Is Injected CO2 Consider ed a Hazardous Waste Under RCRA ?

Comment: EPA has attempted to address th is very important consideration by defining "carbon dioxide stream" in the propos ed rule in such a way that those

CO2 streams which exhibit hazardous charac teristics would not be permitted under the proposed Class VI well classificati on but rather must be permitted and regulated as Class I wells instead. We ar e in agreement with those who believe that although captured C02 will contain some impurities, in those rare instances where concentrations could potentially be viewed as exhibiting RCRA hazardous characteristics, such impurities should be able to be rem oved by appropriate treatment methods prior to their storag e in underground formations. While it is not possible to ignore the obligations and liabilities of waste generators under RCRA, any perception that CO2 streams c ould exhibit these characteristics and therefore require their management as hazardous wastes would have a very chilling effect on the widespread deploymen t of CCS and GS ope rations. We would prefer that instead of referring to CO2 streams as "waste", they should be viewed as an important resource to be managed accordingly.

Individual Response: The final GS rule retains the defini tion of a CO2 stream as proposed. The GS regulation applies to injecti on of CO2 for the purpose of GS, regardless of the source of the CO2. It is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to require or set standards for upstream generators of CO2 or purification facilities.

6With respect to RCRA, EPA received many commen ts regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 st reams that are geologically seque stered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has deci ded to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues pa rticular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that comment ers who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule. Finall y, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds ne w regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any ch anges to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23205 Letter Lines: 195 to 206

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

Comment Code: 2300 1.7 Comments on the Alternatives Considered

Comment: Section III -Proposed Regulatory Alternatives Subsection A -Propos ed Alternative

Comment: Of the four alternat ives considered by EPA, we appreciate the fact that the highly specific requirements approach of Alternative 4 was not chosen. However, even with the selected Alternat ive 3, we believe that EPA still must provide some of the flexibility that was to be considered under Alternative 2. We are somewhat troubled by EPA's statem ent that it "did not select this alternative (Alternative 2) because it is not tailored to meet the unique challenges of long-term C02 storage. While this option includes flexibility for permit authorities to add requirements, EP A cannot be certain th at the necessary adjustments would be made."

Individual Response: Even though the Agency did not choo se Alternative 2, EPA agrees that flexibility is important to accommodate the vari ed conditions that may be encountered at GS sites while ensuring the protection of USDWs. The technical requirements in Al ternative 3 (and the final GS ru le) build upon th e long-standing UIC regulatory framework for deep wells and ar e appropriately tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the vol umes of CO2 to be injected, the buoyant and mobile nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. The regulation provides flexibility for selection of appropriate site s and target formations (under §146.82), well construction specifics (under §146.86), and testing and monitoring regimes (under §146.90), provided the owner or operator can demonstr ate that the injecti on and storage will not endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are met.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23207 Letter Lines: 234 to 238

7Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: Section V - How Will States, Territories, a nd Tribes Obtain UIC Program Primacy

for Class VI Wells?

Comment: Indiana strongly encourages EPA to allow states to seek primacy for the Class VI program independent of other UIC well classes.

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 and 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, a nd 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.

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

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) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their

8expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and en sure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priori ties and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29216 Letter Lines: 208 to 219

Comment Code: 3820 2.3.1 Well construction procedures

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

1. Well casing and cementing standards.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the well construction standards for Class VI wells are too stringent. Instead, the constr uction requirements at §146.86 provi de an appropriate level of protection from endangerment to USDWs that is based upon the existi ng UIC framework for deep wells. The new tailored approach was design ed to address the genera l risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to address the unique na ture of CO2 GS (i.e., including large injection volumes, the relative buo yancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations).

EPA also believes that the regulations allow appropria te flexibility to the Director to evaluate the appropriateness of the owner or operator's propos ed well construction pro cedures based on sitespecific information about the injection project, including injection pressures, injection and confining zone lithology, and information a bout the carbon dioxide stream as provided in §146.86(b)(1). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guida nce will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA believes that, given the continuing evolution of material design and the numerous variables possible in a long-term GS project , listing specific requirements for casing and cement would not be appropriate. Rather, requiring that materials have sufficien t structural strength and be compatible with fluids with which they may co me in contact, in §146.86(b)(1), allows the owner or operator to determine the best casing and cementing design for each project based on

9information about the site and the planned inject ion and allows the Director to approve that design.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29217 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 221 to 222

Comment Code: 3860 2.3.3 Well component degradation

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

2. Prescriptive requirements for degrad ation-resistant well construction materials, such as acid-resistant cements and corrosion resistant casing.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the well construction standards for Class VI wells are too stringent. Instead, the constr uction requirements at §146.86 provi de an appropriate level of protection from endangerment to USDWs that is based upon the existi ng UIC framework for deep wells. The new tailored approach was design ed to address the genera l risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to address the unique na ture of CO2 GS (i.e., including large injection volumes, the relative buo yancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations).

EPA also believes that the regulations allow appropria te flexibility to the Director to evaluate the appropriateness of the owner or operator's propos ed well construction pro cedures based on sitespecific information about the injection project, including injection pressures, injection and confining zone lithology, and information a bout the carbon dioxide stream as provided in §146.86(b)(1). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guida nce will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides flexibility regarding appropriate materials for Cl ass VI wells. The rule doe s not specify materials to be used; rather, it provides owners or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in Class VI wells are compatible with fluids with which they may come into

contact and meet or exceed standards deve loped for such materials by API or ASTM International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as prov ided at §146.86(b)(1).

10Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29218 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 224 to 224

Comment Code: 4200 2.4.2 Down-hole shut-off valves in GS wells (seeking comment)

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

3. Any requirement that down-hole shut o ff valves be installed in GS wells.

Individual Response: Regarding down-hole shutoff devices , after evaluating the risks and benefits of down-hole shut-off systems and consid ering additional research, EPA will not require

automatic down-hole shut-off devices for onshore Cla ss VI wells since they are not necessary in all cases to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. Instead, the final rule, at §146.88(e)(2), requires that owners or operators of onshore Class VI we lls install automatic

surface shut-off devices. The rule affords Director 's discretion to mandate automatic down-hole shut-off devices in onshore situations that may wa rrant their use. However, the Agency believes

that offshore Class VI wells present unique construction and operational conditions, including

isolation from shorelines and the need to c onstruct wells through the water column and the subsurface, which may delay response time in the event of well difficulties. The rule requires, at §146.88(e)(3), that owners or operators of offshore wells within State terr itorial waters install automatic down-hole shut-off systems. EPA beli eves that these requirements at §146.88(e) ensure that proper precautions are taken to pr event subsurface fluid movement and ensure protection of USDWs.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29219 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 226 to 226

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

USDW

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited

11to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

4. Blanket prohibition of GS in zones above the lowermost USDW.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The final GS rule at §146.95 estab lishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injection into non-USDW

formations above and/or between USDWs. The final rule also establishe s limited circumstances under which expansions of the areal extent of aq uifer exemptions may be granted for owners or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioni ng to Class VI injection for GS. Additionally, the final GS rule does not categori cally preclude or prohi bit injection in to any type of formation.

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

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29220 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 228 to 228

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

5. Any requirement to establish minimum injection depth requirements.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to set a mi nimum injection depth for GS projects and the Agency believes that a determ ination of site-suitabili ty for GS (i.e., that

12subsurface formations will receiv e and confine injected CO2) s hould be made on a site-specific basis. The GS rule at §146.82 requires the owne r or operator to provide extensive site and project-specific information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum siting criteria at §146.83 and that the CO2 will be cont ained within the injection formation and that USDWs will be protected from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29221 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 230 to 230

Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential im pact on human health or ecosystems (seeking comment)

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

6. Any provision requiring the use of down-hole tracer systems.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the use of tracers shoul d not be required at all GS sites, but should be available as an option. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, the Director has discretion to require their us e if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director.

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29222 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 232 to 232

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

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track r ecord of effectively managing similar programs have indeed demonstrated an abil ity to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as indicated earl ier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operati ons will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should consider impl ementing rules which afford states with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options thatare best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Sp ecific examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive include:

1314 7. Fixed 50-year post-injection time period.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a post-injection si te care timeframe of 50 years is excessive and clarifies that the 50 year period is not fixed. For example, EPA acknowledges that

there will be circumstances where it can be demons trated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerm ent to USDWs. For this reason, the final GS regulation includes a provision th at the Director may, at his/ her discretion, s horten the postinjection site care timeframe if the owner or operator can demonstr ate that the GS project does not pose a risk to USDWs, as specified in §146.93( b)(2). Such a demonstration will be sitespecific, and based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from endangerment, a de fault timeframe for post-injection site care is necessary. A 50 year post-injecti on site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of resear ch studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and ev aluation of public comments.