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."Bryan Brendle" <BBrendle@nam.org>

12/22/2008 02:10 PM To OW-Docket@EPA

cc "Christina Burch" <CBurch@nam.org>

bcc

Subject NAM Comments - EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Dear Sir or Madam:

Attached please find comments from the National Association of Manufacturers relating to
Federal Requirements pursuant to the Undergr ound Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells. Please c ontact me if you have any questions related to the filing.

Regards,

Bryan L. Brendle

Director, Energy and Resources Policy

The National Associatio n of Manufacturers

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20004

Direct: 202-637-3176

Fax: 202-637-3182

Email: BBrendle@nam.orgDecember 22, 2008

Docket I.D. NO.: EPA-HQ-OW-2998-0390

Via electronic filing and U.S. Mail

Water Docket

Docket Center (EPPA/DC)
Environmental Protection Agency

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re: The National Association of Manufacturers’ Comments on EPA’s Proposed
Rule: Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells

Dear Sir or Madam:

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) submits these comments in response
to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ( EPA) Proposed Rule for federal requirements
pursuant to the Underground Injection Control (U IC) program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic
sequestration wells, as published in the July 25, 2008 issue of the Federal Register, 73 Fed. Reg.

43503. The NAM is the nation’s largest industrial trade association representing small and large
manufacturers in every industrial sector and in a ll 50 states. The NAM is the nation’s leading
voice for the manufacturing economy, a sector that employs more than 13,500,000 Americans and generates $1.6 trillion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Any EPA program laying out a
framework for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology will impact energy markets

and choices. Because manufacturers use more than 1/3 of all energy consumed in the U.S.,
policies that may shape our nation’s fuel choi ces and energy markets have a disproportionate
impact on the manufacturing sector.

The NAM’s mission is to enhance the comp etitiveness of manufacturers and improve
American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S.
economic growth. As a general matter, the NAM supports EPA regulations that are designed to
provide real net benefits to environmental qualit y and the public health, including the health of
manufacturing workers and their families. Conve rsely, the NAM opposes regulations that would
impose overly burdensome compliance costs on the manufacturing sector, especially with no
clear goal for achieving improve d environmental quality.

The NAM supports development and deploymentof advanced, energy efficient and zeroand-low-Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and sequestration technology as part of a long-term
strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. economy. Many members of the NAM have a
direct interest in removing impediments to th e development of CCS technology in order to
increase its commercial viability. Pursuant to i ssues raised specifically by the proposal, the NAM
believes that CCS can be developed in a ma nner that does not undermine the safety of
underground sources of drinking water.Page 2

CCS – EPA

The NAM believes that a CCS policy can be designed that promotes a variety of public
goals, including energy security, economic prosperity and protection of public health and the
environment. The NAM believes that policy make rs, building on the knowledge and expertise of
energy professionals who have long injected car bon into geologic formations to enhance oil
recovery, should establish a new regime and regulatory scheme which will promote the
development and commercial deployment of CCS technology. The NAM is concerned, however,
that EPA regulators may be looking backward, by considering liability schemes pursuant to the
Superfund and Resource Conservation and Rec overy Act (RCRA), as models on which to
establish a framework for the long-term capture and storage of carbon. The NAM does not
believe that use of a statute such as Superfund, which has been the source of endless litigation, is
an appropriate model on which to base something as modern as CCS.

The NAM also supports establishment of a single and transparent regulatory structure
that applies to CCS rather than a patchwork of re gulatory and liability statutes that were designed
to regulate activities completely unrelated to CCS. To this end, the NAM would support a
continued dialogue with EPA and other regulators in order to craft a new and modern structure
specific to CCS, and established in such a manne r that will expedite its deployment, while not
hindering the refinement and improvement of the process.

The NAM appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Manufacturers look
forward to working with federal officials to cr aft a comprehensive framework that will promote
the commercial viability of CCS. For more information related to the NAM’s position on CCS
technology, please contact Bryan Brendle at (202) 637-3176.

Sincerely,

Keith McCoy
Vice President, Energy and Resources PolicyLetter ID: 0258
Commenter: Keith McCoy
Organization: National Asso ciation of Manufacturers

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22373 Letter Lines: 102 to 109

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: The NAM supports development and deploymen t of advanced, energy efficient and
zero-and-low-Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and sequestration tec hnology as part
of a long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. economy. Many

members of the NAM have a direct inte rest in removing impediments to the
development of CCS technology in order to increase its comm ercial viability.
Pursuant to issues raised specifically by the proposal, the NAM believes that
CCS can be developed in a manner that does not undermine the safety of
underground sources of drinking water.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that large-scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation
builds upon the long-standing prot ective framework of the UIC program, which has been
regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances
this existing framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of
large-scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requireme nts include more extensive
geologic testing, detailed computational modeli ng of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations,
detailed requirements for monitoring and tr acking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and
extended post-injection m onitoring and site care.

For additional information on EPA’s final regula tory approach, please see the final rule and
preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22374 Letter Lines: 112 to 124

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: The NAM believes that a CCS policy can be designed that promotes a variety of
public goals, including energy security, ec onomic prosperity and protection of
public health and the environment. Th e NAM believes that policy makers,
building on the knowledge and expertise of energy professionals who have long
injected carbon into geologic formati ons to enhance oil recovery, should
establish a new regime and regulatory sche me which will promote the development
and commercial deployment of CCS tec hnology. The NAM is concerned, however,
that EPA regulators may be looking back ward, by considering liability schemes
pursuant to the Superfund and Resource Cons ervation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as

models on which to establish a framework for the long-term capture and storage
of carbon. The NAM does not believe that use of a statute such as Superfund,

1which has been the source of endless lit igation, is an appropriate model on
which to base something as modern as CCS.

Individual Response: EPA received many comments regardi ng 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 changes to the RCRA regulations.

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substan ce under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may
contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the
subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as
sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration
facility depends entirely on th e composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental
media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or gr ound water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “feder ally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure
that they prevent potential releases from the we ll which are outside the scope of the Class VI
permit.

EPA adds that promoting the use of GS is outsi de the scope of the GS rule. Rather, the purpose
of the GS regulation is to ensu re that, where deployed, GS is c onducted in a manner that protects
USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22375 Letter Lines: 126 to 132

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: The NAM also supports establishment of a single and transp arent regulatory
structure that applies to CCS rather than a patchwork of regulatory and
liability statutes that were designe d to regulate activities completely

unrelated to CCS. To this end, the NAM w ould support a continued dialogue with
EPA and other regulators in order to craft a new and m odern structure specific

to CCS, and established in such a manner that will expedite its deployment,
while not hindering the refinement a nd improvement of the process.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and
the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In
developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices

2and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological
Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the
Minerals Management Service; and the Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to
evaluate areas of potential appli cability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not

limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Cons ervation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate

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

the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22376 Letter Lines: 134 to 138

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: The NAM appreciates the opportunity to co mment on this proposal. Manufacturers
look forward to working with federal officials to craft a comprehensive
framework that will promote the comme rcial viability of CCS. For more
information related to the NAM’s pos ition on CCS technology, please contact
Bryan Brendle at (202) 637-3176.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's
responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final
regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or encourag e the use of GS; rather,
its purpose is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations
across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in
anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions.

3