### 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.

### BASIN ELECTRIC

POWER COOPERATIVE

1717 EAST INTERSTATE AVENUE

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 58503-0564

PHONE 701·223-0441

FAX ' 7n11::>::>4.!'\.'t1fi

October 15, 2009

VIA: ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 4101T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Re: Comments on Notice of Data Availability for Federal Requirements Under the

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (C0 2 ) Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells (74 Fed. Reg. 44802 (Aug. 31, 2009)), Docket ID EPA-HQOW-2008-0390

Dear Administrator Jackson:

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments

to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regards to the Notice of Data Availability and

Request for Comment (NODA) relating to the proposed Federal Requirements Under the

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (C0 2 ) Geologic Sequestration

(GS) Wells, 74 Fed, Reg. 44802 (Aug, 31, 2009). Basin Electric submitted comments last

December on EPA's proposal to regulate CO 2 GS under the UIC program. See 73 Fed. Reg.

43492 (July 25, 2008).

Basin Electric is a regional, consumer-owned, power supplier formed in 1961 to provide

supplemental power to a consortium of electric distribution cooperatives, Basin

Electric's core business is generating and delivering electricity to wholesale customers,

primarily our member systems, Basin Electric owns 2,599 megawatts (MW) and operates 3,518 MW

of electric generating capacity. Basin Electric supplies 136 rural electric member cooperative

systems with wholesale electric power who in turn serve approximately 2.8 million

consumers in a nine-state area,

Basin Electric has extensive institutional knowledge of coal gasification, carbon capture

and CO 2 sequestration through its subsidiary, the Dakota Gasification Company (DGC),

DGC owns and operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant (Synfuels Plant), the only

commercial-scale coal gasification plant in the United States that manufactures

synthetic natural gas.

The $2,1 billion plant began operating in 1984. The Synfuels Plant uses the Lurgi gasification

process to gasify lignite coal to produce valuable gases and liquids. The average

daily production is 160 million standard cubic feet of synthetic natural gas (SNG), the

majority of which is piped to Ventura, Iowa, for distribution in the eastern United States.

Many by-products and alternate products are produced and marketed in the United

States and worldwide.

A Touchstone Energ l Cooperative

## 1'-**~** 

# - Equal

Employment

Opportunity

EmployerOctober 15, 2009

Page 

### 2

DGC captures CO 2 from the gasification process and provides all the CO 2 sequestered in the

largest anthropogenic CO 2 sequestration project in the world. Through 2008, Dakota Gasification

has successfully captured and marketed over 16 million tons of CO 2 to two Canadian customers.

The current total CO 2 demand is 152.7 million standard cubic feet (MMscf), which is approximately

8,800 tons per day or 3 million tons per year. The CO 2 is being used for enhanced oil recovery

(EOR) in oil fields near Weyburn, Saskatchewan. The CO 2 is expected to be permanently

sequestered in the oil reservoir and is being monitored by the International Energy Agency (lEA)

Weyburn CO 2 Monitoring and Storage Project. The 2000-2004 lEA GHG Weyburn CO 2 Monitoring

& Storage Project Summary Report states in the Conclusion that "modeling predicts that there is a

95% probability that 98.7% to 99.5% of the initial CO 2 -in-place will remain in the geosphere for

5000 years."

Basin Electric is also developing and attempting to move forward with a post-combustion CO 2

capture demonstration project for a 120 MW slipstream of flue gas at its Antelope Valley Station

(AVS). a pulverized coal power plant next to the DGC facility near Beulah, North Dakota. If

completed, this will become the largest demonstration of CO 2 capture on a conventional pulverized

coal power plant. As the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) notes in its

comments, "Eighty percent of the electric power generating plants owned by cooperatives,

approximately 24,000 MWs, is coal-fired generation." So the development of post-combustion CO 2

capture and storage (CCS) technology is an important step in allowing our nation's fleet of

conventional pulverized coal combustion facilities to remain a part of our nation's energy future in a

world that will likely be CO 2 -emission constrained.

The IPCC's 2005 report on "Carbon Capture and Storage" notes that mature sedimentary basins

such as the Williston Basin in the upper Great Plains are "prime targets for CO 2 storage because:

(1) they have well-known characteristics; (2) hydrocarbon pools and/or coal beds have been

discovered and produced; (3) some petroleum reservoirs might be already depleted, nearing

depletion or abandoned as uneconomic without advanced production systems such as EOR: (4) the

infrastructure needed for CO 2 transport and injection may already be in place." l Use of CO 2 for

EOR often adds an additional 7-23% of incremental oil recovery from a field, and depleted oil fields

have advantages for CO 2 sequestration because "the oil and gas that originally accumulated in

traps (structural and stratigraphic) did not escape (in some cases for many millions of years),

demonstrating their integrity and safety," and because "the geological structure and physical

properties of most oil and gas fields have been extensively studied and characterized.,,2 IPCC's

2005 "Carbon Capture and Storage" Report also recognizes that Basin Electric's DGClWeyburn

project, "despite the presence of many hundreds of existing wells, after four years of CO 2 injection

there has been no measurable leakage (Strutt et al., 2003).,,3 Thus, EOR is an established option

for CO 2 sequestration in the Williston Basin, and geological formations are holding sequestered CO 2

without leakage. There is an identified need for additional CO 2 for EOR in the Williston Basin when

the technology becomes mature enough to provide it at a reasonable cost to customers. Basin

Electric's AVS Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture Project is an attempt to move that technology

forward.

1 IPCC "Carbon Capture and Storage" Report (2005), Chapter 5. p. 215, available at

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srcc.htm.

2 1d

.

3 1d

.October 

### 15, 2009

Page 3

In addition to EOR options, saline aquifers have been identified in the Mississippian Madison

geological formation of the Williston Basin with the capacity to store approximately 

### 60 gigatons (Le.,



### 60 billion tons) of CO 2

, which is enough capacity, for example, to store all of the CO 2 emitted from a

facility emitting 

### 3 million tons of CO 2 per year for 

### 20,000 years.

IPCC's 

### 2005 report on "Carbon Capture and Storage" also says that most scenarios project that the

supply of primary energy used by humans will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels until the

middle of the 

### 21 st -century.4 The IPCC notes that stabilizing CO

2 levels in the atmosphere will not

likely be achieved with a single technological option, but CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) in

geological formations is one of the most important technologies that may make such stabilization

possible."s

"[T]he global capacity to store CO 2 deep underground is large. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are

estimated to have a storage capacity of 

### 675-900 [metric gigatons of] CO 2 • Deep saline formations

are very likely to have a storage capacity of at least 

### 1000 [metric gigatons of] CO 2 and some studies

suggest it may be an order of magnitude greater than this, but quantification of the upper range is

difficult until additional studies are undertaken.,,6

The IPCC "Carbon Capture and Storage" Report acknowledges that natural underground

accumulation of CO 2 is "a widespread geological phenomenon," and that '[w]hile there are

differences between natural accumulations and engineered storage, injecting CO 2 into deep

geological formations at carefully selected sites can store it underground for long periods of time: it

is considered likely that 

### 99% or more of the injected CO 2 will be retained for 

### 1000 years.,,7

Geological sequestration of CO 2 is, in sum, one of the important tools available for stabilizing CO 2

levels in the atmosphere, and Basin Electric/DGC's Weyburn project is currently the largest carbon

sequestration project in the world demonstrating the feasibility of such capture and storage.

Whatever steps are taken either legislatively or through rulemaking to regulate CO 2 and other

greenhouse gases (GHGs) must allow CCS technology and other carbon and GHG control

technologies to be developed, and must allow a reasonable time frame to do so.

Basin Electric applauds EPA's careful approach to the development of CO 2 GS regulations,

including this most recent release of additional data

. Because the technology contemplated in the

CO 2 GS proposal will not be commercially deployed for many years, it is essential the Final Rule be

flexible enough to accommodate developments in information and technology related to carbon

sequestration. It is critical that EPA develop a regulatory regime incorporating performance-based

standards in order to allow for site-tailored requirements that will reflect the vast differences among

various potential CO 2 GS sites.

Basin Electric supports EPA's suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow for CO 2 GS

injection above and between underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). 

### 74 Fed. Reg. at



### 44810. As stated in the NODA, EPA's original proposal to define Class VI injection wells as those

used for injection of CO 2 beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW 

### (73 Fed

. Reg

. at



### 43511) would preclude injection of CO 2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby restricting

or rendering impossible CO 2 GS sites in large areas of the country with deep USDWs. 

### 74 Fed.

4 Id

. at p. 3

.

5 Id. at p.53.

6 1d

. at p. 197.

7 1d

. at p. 197.October 15, 2009

Page 4

Reg. at 44808. The proposal would also prohibit CO 2 injection into many shallow formations such

as coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. As the NODA observes, a number of states

have indicated that regions with very deep and layered USDWs could not undertake CO 2 GS

projects because injectors could not comply with the proposed injection depth and well construction

requirements. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44809.

EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the originally

proposed injection depth requirement but allow owners or operators to apply for a site-specific

waiver from those injection depth requirements upon making a demonstration that such injection

can be undertaken in a manner that prevents the endangerment of public health from USDW

contamination. Id. at 44810. Basin Electric believes that such a flexible approach would ensure

adequate protection of USDWs while recognizing the vast geographic and topographic differences

between potential CO 2 GS sites throughout the country, allowing for maximization of safe CO 2 storage capacity nationwide.

While Basin Electric supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal described above, we urge

EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a waiver provision, rather than leaving the adoption

of an injection depth waiver process to the discretion of the individual UIC Program Directors. Id. at

44811. While it is true that deep USDWs do not exist in every state and that states without USDWs

may choose not to grant waivers, inclusion of a waiver provision would still leave UIC Program

Directors free to decline to grant any waivers where not necessary or appropriate. See id. CO 2 GS

technology is rapidly developing; because this experience with and information regarding this

technology is growing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a regulatory framework that is flexible

enough to respond to developments in the field.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this new data and EPA's new proposal for an

injection depth waiver process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please

contact Lyle Witham at 701-557-5652.

Sincerely,

# (!ffi;;uJ¢~

Claire M. Olson

General Counsel

rle/cmoLetter ID: 0351

Commenter: Claire M. Olson

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric)

Letter ID: 0351 Comment ID: 28053 Letter Lines: 91 to 162

Comment Code: 2300 2.3. Additional Research

Comment: The IPCC's 2005 report on "Carbon Capture and Storage" notes that mature

sedimentary basins such as the Williston Basin in the upper Great Plains are

"prime targets for CO2storage because: (1) they have well

‐ known characteristics;

(2) hydrocarbon pools and/or coal beds have been discovered and produced; (3)

some petroleum reservoirs might be already depleted, nearing depletion or

abandoned as uneconomic without advanced production systems such as EOR: (4) the

infrastructure needed for CO2 transport and injection may already be in place."1

Use of CO2 for EOR often adds an additional 7

‐ 23% of incremental oil recovery

from a field, and depleted oil fields have advantages for CO2 sequestration

because "the oil and gas that originally accumulated in traps (structural and

stratigraphic) did not escape (in some cases for many millions of years),

demonstrating their integrity and safety," and because "the geological structure

and physical properties of most oil and gas fields have been extensively studied

and characterized..." [Footnote 2] IPCC's 2005 "Carbon Capture and Storage"

Report also recognizes that Basin Electric's DGC Weyburn project, "despite the

presence of many hundreds of existing wells, after four years of CO2 injection

there has been no measurable leakage (Strutt et al., 2003)."[Footnote 3] Thus, EOR is an

established option for CO2sequestration in the Williston Basin, and geological

formations are holding sequestered CO2 without leakage. There is an identified

need for additional CO2for EOR in the Williston Basin when the technology

becomes mature enough to provide it at a reasonable cost to customers. Basin

Electric's AVS Post

‐ Combustion CO2 Capture Project is an attempt to move that

technology forward.

[Footnote 1]: IPCC "Carbon Capture and Storage" Report

(2005), Chapter 5, p. 215, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srcc.htm.

[Footnote 2]: Id.

[Footnote 3]: Id.

In addition to EOR options, saline aquifers have been identified in the

Mississippian Madison geological formation of the Williston Basin with thecapacity to store approximately 60 gigatons (ie., 60 billion tons) of CO2, which

is enough capacity, for example, to store all of the CO2 emitted from a facility

emitting 3 million tons of CO2 per year for 20,000 years.

IPCC's 2005 report on "Carbon Capture and Storage" also says that most scenarios

project that the supply of primary energy used by humans will continue to be

dominated by fossil fuels until the middle of the 21st

‐ century.[Footnote 4] The

IPCC notes that stabilizing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not likely be

achieved with a single technological option, but CO2 capture and storage (CCS)

in geological formations is one of the most important technologies that may make

such stabilization possible."[Footnote 5]

[Footnote 4]: Id. at p. 3.

[Footnote 5]: Id. at p.53.

"[T]he global capacity to store CO2 deep underground is large. Depleted oil and

gas reservoirs are estimated to have a storage capacity of 675

‐ 900 [metric

gigatons of] CO2. Deep saline formations are very likely to have a storage

capacity of at least 1000 [metric gigatons of] CO2 and some studies suggest it

may be an order of magnitude greater than this, but quantification of the upper

range is difficult until additional studies are undertaken."[Footnote 6]

[Footnote 6]: Id. at p.197.

The IPCC "Carbon Capture and Storage" Report acknowledges that natural

underground accumulation of CO2 is "a widespread geological phenomenon," and

that '[w]hile there are differences between natural accumulations and engineered

storage, injecting CO2 into deep geological formations at carefully selected

sites can store it underground for long periods of time: it is considered likely

that 99% or more of the injected CO2 will be retained for 1000 years."[Footnote 7]

[Footnote 7]: Id. at p.197.

Geological sequestration of CO2 is, in sum, one of the important tools available

for stabilizing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and Basin Electric/DGC's Weyburn

project is currently the largest carbon sequestration project in the world

demonstrating the feasibility of such capture and storage. Whatever steps are

taken either legislatively or through rulemaking to regulate CO2 and other

greenhouse gases (GHGs) must allow CCS technology and other carbon and GHG

control technologies to be developed, and must allow a reasonable time frame to

do so.Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that CCS is an important technology for reduction

of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and is committed to research and development of CCS in

cooperation with other federal agencies and States. EPA also agrees with the commenter that

sedimentary basins, such as the Williston Basin, and oil and gas reservoirs, such as the Weyburn field,

are attractive targets for GS.

EPA acknowledges the comment that a certain percentage of CO2 used in ER may be trapped in the

receiving formation and be permanently stored. However, EPA believes that further data is needed to

better characterize the movement and leakage of CO2 at ER sites, as well as the amount that remains

sequestered after injection ceases. Importantly, ER projects are operated to minimize CO2 use and

maximize oil or gas production. Operation of GS sites, while similar to ER in some respects, will exhibit

the fundamentally different objective of maximizing CO2 injection and sequestration. Therefore, EPA

anticipates that the risk posed by GS projects to USDWs will be greater than currently operated EOR

projects, and warrant today’s tailored set of requirements. For this reason, EPA is requiring in today’s

final regulation that all projects injecting CO2 into an active or depleted oil or gas reservoir for the

primary purpose of long

‐ term storage seek a Class VI permit.

Letter ID: 0351 Comment ID: 28054 Letter Lines: 164 to 171

Comment Code: 1000 1. General Comments on the Notice of Data Availability

Comment: Basin Electric applauds EPA's careful approach to the development of CO2 GS

regulations, including this most recent release of additional data. Because the

technology contemplated in the CO2 GS proposal will not be commercially deployed

for many years, it is essential the Final Rule be flexible enough to accommodate

developments in information and technology related to carbon sequestration. It

is critical that EPA develop a regulatory regime incorporating performance

‐ based

standards in order to allow for site

‐ tailored requirements that will reflect the

vast differences among various potential CO2 GS sites.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the final rule is based on the most recent GS

‐ related data,

information, and scientific research available. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to

incorporate such data as it implements its adaptive approach to GS rulemaking to incorporate new

research, data, and information about GS. The Agency believes that an adaptive approach provides Class

VI owners or operators the flexibility to use and apply newly developed technologies for GS as they

become available in the future.

EPA agrees with the commenter that a site

‐ specific approach to permitting GS sites is important. The

final rule provides Class VI owners or operators the flexibility to select technologies appropriate for a

specific site and affords the Director flexibility to establish permit requirements on the basis of site

‐specific characteristics. For additional information on the adaptive approach and site

‐ specific

requirements, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0351 Comment ID: 28055 Letter Lines: 173 to 195

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: Basin Electric supports EPA's suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to

allow for CO2 GS injection above and between underground sources of drinking

water (USDWs). 74 Fed. Reg. at 44810. As stated in the NODA, EPA's original

proposal to define Class VI injection wells as those used for injection of CO2

beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW (73 Fed. Reg. at 43511) would

preclude injection of CO2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby

restricting or rendering impossible CO2 GS sites in large areas of the country

with deep USDWs. 74 Fed.Reg. at 44808. The proposal would also prohibit CO2

injection into many shallow formations such as coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed.

Reg. at 43512. As the NODA observes, a number of states have indicated that

regions with very deep and layered USDWs could not undertake CO2 GS projects

because injectors could not comply with the proposed injection depth and well

construction requirements. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44809.

EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the

originally proposed injection depth requirement but allow owners or operators to

apply for a site

‐ specific waiver from those injection depth requirements upon

making a demonstration that such injection can be undertaken in a manner that

prevents the endangerment of public health from USDW contamination. Id. at

44810. Basin Electric believes that such a flexible approach would ensure

adequate protection of USDWs while recognizing the vast geographic and

topographic differences between potential CO2 GS sites throughout the country,

allowing for maximization of safe CO2 storage capacity nationwide.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site

‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection into non

‐ USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators can seek a waiver of the Class

VI injection depth requirements. The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to concerns

about local and regional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth

requirements; 2) allows for a more site

‐ specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3)

accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) allows 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 aquifer exemptions for GS.

Finally, EPA's approach to addressing injection depth variability through a waiver process responds to

concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality

water remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs.

Letter ID: 0351 Comment ID: 28056 Letter Lines: 197 to 207

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach

Comment: While Basin Electric supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal

described above, we urge EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a

waiver provision, rather than leaving the adoption of an injection depth waiver

process to the discretion of the individual UIC Program Directors. Id. at 44811.

While it is true that deep USDWs do not exist in every state and that states

without USDWs may choose not to grant waivers, inclusion of a waiver provision

would still leave UIC Program Directors free to decline to grant any waivers

where not necessary or appropriate. See id. CO2 GS technology is rapidly

developing; because this experience with and information regarding this

technology is growing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a regulatory framework

that is flexible enough to respond to developments in the field.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowing

for waivers based on regional or state

‐ specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if

they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, Territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.

EPA recognizes that GS technologies are rapidly developing. For this reason, the Agency is adopting an

adaptive rulemaking approach. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects,

including information on any Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements, todetermine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.