1.2

– Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s Authority

This file contains responses to public comments on EPA’s authority (comment codes

1400 to 1540). This section includes comments supporting or opposing the rule, EPA’s
authority to regulate CO 2 and injection, other authorities, and State efforts to regulate

GS.

The table below presents all of the EPA

‐ assigned comment codes that are included in

this section of the comment and response summary. Use the bookmarks in the PDF to

move among the comment codes.

Topics included in this summary an d associated comment codes

Topic Code

1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2 1400

1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 1410

1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 1420

1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 1430

1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance 1435

1.2.2 Comments opposing EPA/rulemaking (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1440

1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking 1450

1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 1460

1.2.2.2.1 CO2 injection is exempt from UIC (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1470

1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 1480

1.2.2.2.3 CO2 is not a fluid (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1490

1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS 1500

1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 1510

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

1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS 1530

1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 1540

Every comment on these topic areas and the associated response is included in this

summary; there is some repetition where multiple commenters made the same

comment.

Responses to letters from individual commenters or organizations are also available in

the rulemaking docket.Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Herbert Skolnick, Ph.D. Letter ID: 0110 Commenter Organization: Group Against Smog and Pollution, Inc. (GASP) Comment ID: 22039

Comment: Agency Administration and Oversight

The costs and logistics of large scale CO2 sequestration are mindboggling. Participating utilities will have to retrofit in order to collect, clean, compress, and store CO2; pipelines and storage depots must be constructed; and fleets of tanker trucks will be required for transport. Given the critical environmental and energy problems we face and the complexity of large scale CO2 sequestration infrastructure, the CO2 sequestration program needs special oversight to keep costs down, maintain efficiency, minimize political interventions, and keep inter-agency squabbles out of the mix. The roles of relevant government agencies, particularly EPA and DOE, must be clarified in order to keep administration as uncomplicated as possible and provide strong oversight.

Response: EPA received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore environmental and regulatory issues beyond the scope of the proposed SDWA requirements for underground injection of CO2 for GS.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: Patrick Nugent Letter ID: 0143 Commenter Organization: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA) Comment ID: 23126

Comment: 3. EPA should not go beyond the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in the development of rules to support geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. As a word of caution, TPA urges EPA to limit its development of criteria for the safe long term storage of carbon dioxide to its statutoryauthority under the SDWA. The statutory authority under which EPA is proceeding in this rulemaking is limited to the SDWA. Any attempt by EPA to propose criteria that exceed the boundaries or authority of the SDWA would be inappropriate. TPA recognizes that it is anticipated that this program will be a component of any future climate change program that Congress may fashion in the future. As tempting as it might be to establish criteria in this rule package that will complement a future carbon cap-andtrade or other regulatory program, we would urge EPA not to do so. Only after Congress finalizes the structure of a climate change program should EPA begin development of those complimentary provisions.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA adds that regulating carbon cap and trade is outside of the UIC program's authority under

SDWA.

Commenter Name: James Rower Letter ID: 0173 Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23490 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking comment)

Comment: It also is important to clarify in the Final Rule that well plugging is only necessary and appropriate for those wells that are potential conduits of contamination to USDWs. USWAG raises this point because EPA suggests that the Final Rule may give the Director discretion to require Owners or Operators to conduct surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring in the AoR. Id. at 43516. Such a requirement would be appropriate only to the extent that this monitoring would be done with the goal of identifying potential endangerment of USDWs as a result of CO2 injection and sequestration activities. Id. To the extent that such monitoring would be required simply to guard against potential atmospheric releases or to trigger a corrective action requirement to terminate such atmospheric releases, it would be outside of the scope of EPA's authority under this rulemaking. See id. at 43498 ("preventing releases of CO2 to the atmosphere is not within the scope of this proposal").

Response: EPA believes that surface air and soil gas monitoring are within the scope of the SDWA in that they can provide additional data to pinpoint the location and magnitude (or absence) of leaks that could endanger USDWs. Used in conjunction with deep subsurface monitoring, as required at§146.90, and as part of a multi-barrier approach to protecting USDWs from endangerment, surface air and soil gas monitoring are within the scope of SDWA’s general authority (SDWA sections 1421 et al.).

EPA clarifies that use of surface air and soil gas monitoring as specified in the final GS rule at §146.90(h), as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c), is at the Director's discretion.

Regarding corrective action for wells in the AoR, EPA clarifies that the rule, at §146.84(d), requires owners or operators to perform corrective action on all deficient wells in the AoR. This requirement is independent of the testing and monitoring requirements at §146.90.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23572

Comment: 4. Limitations on existing authority. The Agency should adhere to its limited authority at this juncture under SDWA and should avoid exceeding that authority. The value of developing a clear regulatory regime will be undermined if that regime is potentially unstable or subject to lengthy delays because of potential susceptibility to attack for failure to adhere to the Agency‘s authority. Moreover, as EPA notes in the preamble, SDWA does not provide EPA "authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS." More specifically, EPA further states that it "is not proposing regulation for CO2 under the Clean Air Act [ ] in this proposed rulemaking."[FN3]

[FN3] Id. at 43495.

Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment and believes the final rulemaking falls within EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for underground injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment. Thus, EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address other general issues related to CCS, such as capture and transportation. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the injection of fluids.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23573 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: 5. Anticipation of related developments. On the other hand, the Agency should strive to anticipate future statutory and regulatory developments in the climate change arena so that any rulemaking has a reasonable chance of melding with such developments. For instance, while it is clear that SDWA does not authorize the Agency to develop rules that specify any kind of "credit" system for capture and storage of CO2, the Agency can and should consider how its UIC rulemaking will fit with foreseeable features of potential future regimes and how rules can be drafted to complement such features to the extent possible.Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23591 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking comment)

Comment: - Potential issues of EPA authority: As noted above, EEI views the development and implementation of legally defensible regulations as a key to commercial deployment of CCS. To that end, EEI encourages the Agency to consider carefully the link between each proposed provision and its authority to regulate under SDWA. Where the link is more tenuous, the proposed provision may be subject to greater risk of legal challenge, posing uncertainty for those who desire to move ahead with projects. While, as the Agency points out, the use of tracers or surface air/soil gas monitoring could indicate that some threat to USDW may be posed, it seems more likely that by the time the results of such methods revealed any concerns, such sources would already be affected. Thus, the nexus between those methods and protection of USDW may be subject to challenge by opponents of the proposed provisions. And the nexus between surface air/soil gas monitoring and protection of USDW may be at greater risk of challenge, as the detection of a CO2 leak to surface air conceivably provides no useful information that would serve to protect USDW. Indeed, while EPA notes in the preamble that detection of leakage to the surface "would indicate potential endangerment" to USDW as a last line of defense, the Agency also acknowledges that regulation of surface or atmospheric releases of CO2 are outside the scope of the proposed rules and the Agency‘s SDWA authority.

While the proposed rules would leave these requirements to the discretion of the UIC program director, again the proposal sets no clear parameters for the exercise of such discretion. EEI does not believe that any provisions related to the use of tracers are required or warranted for the protection of USDW, but should EPA choose to impose a discretionary requirement, any such requirement should be bounded by appropriate parameters for its use.

Response: As described above, subsurface geochemical and pressure monitoring in the subsurface formations are the first line of monitoring that would allow detection of potential endangerment to USDWs from GS activities (this is required at all GS sites, as described at §146.90(d)).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 certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process under §146.84, the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects under §146.90, and the post-injection site care process under §146.93.

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA disagrees with the comment with respect to its authority under the SDWA and believes it within the Agency’s authority to provide the Director with discretion to require surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring in the AoR at §146.90(h). This discretion is limited to potential risks to USDWs within the AoR. EPA believes that monitoring for the injected fluid at the surface for the purposes of protecting USDWs is within the jurisdiction of the SDWA. If the injected CO2 were to migrate through fractures, abandoned well bore holes or other means, it would be released in a gaseous form at the surface, and therefore must be monitored as such. EPA believes that having this information can be critical to allow the Director to determine whether injected CO2 has migrated from the injection zone and endangered a USDW(s).

EPA is developing guidance for permitting authorities that will include recommendations for how Directors may exercise discretion in implementing the requirements of the GS rule, including the testing and monitoring requirements. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

The final rule at §146.90(h) retains the allowance for surface air and soil gas monitoring at the discretion of the Director as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c).

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23796 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: If atmospheric emissions of CO2 are to be controlled, CCS is the only tool now on the horizon that may be capable of addressing in a major way and within a mid-term timeframe, the very large quantities of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel using facilities in the United States. However, CCS still requires the definition of a stable and rational legal and regulatory regime before it can be widely deployed. EPA has clear regulatory authority over the injection of wastes and other substances into below-surface wells through the UIC program. The UIC program was created by Congress under the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") over 30 years ago, without consideration of potential interaction with policies to address climate change, for the protection of underground sources of drinkingwater ("USDW). The Agency now proposes to use this framework to regulate belowground CO2 injection activities, an application not contemplated at the time SDWA was drafted. Rules for geologic sequestration ("GS") of CO2 are timely and would be needed even if CCS is not deployed as quickly as many predict. While many projects are under development, many observers are operating under theassumption that it will be a decade or more before there can be wide deployment of CCS.[FN3] The future of CCS is and will be at a critical juncture for some years. The CCS Alliance seeks, through its comments, to help ensure that these regulatory activities promote well designed and implemented CCS projects with sound risk management practices, and do not preclude the responsible, cost effective commercial-scale sequestration of CO2.

[FN3] See, e.g., "EPRI Summer Seminar and Energy Technology Assessment Center (ETAC) Studies," presentation of Hank Courtright, Senior Vice President,

Electric Power Research Institute. October 22. 2008.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 certainty 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 projects §146.90, and the post-injection site care process §146.93.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23808

Comment: B. SDWA AUTHORITY IS LIMITED

The CCS Alliance agrees with EPA's view of its authority under the SDWA as limited to preventing endangerment of USDWs by the underground injection of CO2. The Agency properly notes that regulating surface water and atmospheric releases is outside the scope of this proposal and SDWA authority. Though EPA regulates both pollutants and commodities under the UIC provisions, it is clear that the proposal does not address the status of CO2 whether as a pollutant or commodity.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23877 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport); 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: XII. RELATED ISSUES, NOT RAISED IN THE PROPOSED RULE, THAT REQUIRE

RESOLUTIONThe SDWA does not provide EPA authority to develop regulations for many important areas related to the geological sequestration of CO2. Thus the draft rule cannot address all of the potential impediments to CCS development. Even if EPA were to promulgate a final UIC rule that encourages development of these critical technologies, there are other key factors that would need to be properly addressed before major investment in these technologies can be expected.

The following sets forth key issues that will not be resolved through this rulemaking but are linked inextricably to the successful development and implementation of CCS technology.

A. EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY TO FACILITATE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

Energy facilities for the public convenience and necessity, such as electric transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines, are able to make use of state or federal eminent domain authority to ensure that private landowners cannot block a project necessary for the public good. Eminent domain authority should be available for CO2 pipelines for CCS when it is necessary to cross private property. A substantial CO2 pipeline network may be required for the transport of CO2 from sites where it is produced to an injection site. CO2 pipelines for CCS clearly should be considered to be used for the public convenience and necessity.

B. DETERMINATION OF SUB-SURFACE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The government must address the ability to gain sufficient property rights to deep saline formations to conduct geologic sequestration. State property ownership regimes vary, but surface owners typically are considered to own property below the surface to the center of the earth. Safe sequestration of CO2 will not have any effect on the surface, but GS injections will result in underground plumes that may stretch across many square miles under the property of multiple surface property owners. Property ownership issues have been resolved successfully in the context of EOR, but it should not be assumed that the same will be true for GS. Eminent domain authority should be available to obtain rights to subsurface storage space for geologic sequestration because of its public benefit.

C. RESOLUTION OF SURFACE LIABILITY ISSUES

Though this Proposed Rule is limited in its scope to underground injection of CO2 and the potential risks and resulting liabilities, issues regarding risks and liability at the surface must be addressed for CCS technology to fully develop. These include liability for major and sudden releases, seismic activity and ground heave, as well as liability under any GHG emission control regime when sequestered CO2, for the storage of which credits or offsets have been granted, is subsequently released into the upper atmosphere.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS. EPA received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore environmental andregulatory issues beyond the scope of the GS rule as proposed. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Commenter Name: Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183 Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center Comment ID:

25137 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: The ELPC’s primary objection to the proposed regulation is that regulation of geologic sequestration under the SDWA is too narrow in focus to ensure that carbon capture and sequestration ("CCS") fulfills its potential to be "a key mitigation technology for achieving domestic [greenhouse gas] emissions reductions." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,496. EPA is proposing to regulate GS by creating a new category of injection well ("Class VI") for GS under its existing UIC program under the SDWA. As EPA acknowledges, however, its authority under the SDWA is limited. See 42 U.S.C. 300h(a)-(b)(1), (d); 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,495. Other rules and regulations are needed to address CCS issues falling outside the scope of the SDWA (e.g., establishing mechanisms for protecting private drinking water supplies, funding costs and damages associated with injury to persons and/or water supplies despite compliance with the UIC regulations, accidental releases of CO2 to the atmosphere, and compensation for and remediation of harm to public health or the environment other than the endangerment of underground sources of drinking water ("USDWs")). See infra Part III(c)(1)(b); 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,495, 43,497, 43,520, 43,522 (discussing EPA’s view of CCS issues that fall outside purview of SDWA). Other issues related to the capture and transport of

CO2 also need to be considered and addressed.

Many of these issues are of critical importance and will likely need to be addressed before large-scale industry investment in CCS will take place. See, e.g., infra Part III(C)(1)(b)(ii) (discussing industry’s need for a clear and comprehensive long-term liability scheme). Piecemeal regulation of CCS is likely to cause confusion, inefficiency, potentially conflicting requirements orpolicies, and other problems that could be avoided by a comprehensive approach to regulation of CCS. Although ELPC and ETIP believe comprehensive regulations addressing CCS would more likely ensure that CCS becomes a successful climate change mitigation technology, we recognize that Congress may need to enact legislation enabling EPA (or another federal agency) to take such a comprehensive approach.

Response: EPA received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore environmental and regulatory issues beyond the scope of the GS rule as proposed. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Edward Steadman Letter ID: 0220 Commenter Organization: The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota Comment ID:

21584

Comment: Page 43495. II. What Is EPA Proposing. "development of a key climate change mitigation technology"? Will these rules really support the "development of a key climate change mitigation technology"? Is it really within the purview of protecting USDW?

Response: EPA is finalizing federal minimum requirements for geologic sequestration under the SDWA’s UIC program. EPA believes that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. The SDWA mandates EPA to establish federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the underground injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA.

EPA clarifies that the scope of this GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed to protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21899 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: 7. EPA’s laudable efforts notwithstanding, we believe the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) does not provide adequate authority to comprehensively regulate GS. Because the statutory authority for the UIC Program derives from the SDWA, the proposed rule is unable to address key issues that must be resolved for commercial-scale GS,[FN1] such as:

• ownership of pore space (discussed in Chapter 5 of attached report); • potential human health or ecological impacts if carbon dioxide leaks to the surface or near-surface (discussed in Chapters 1, 4, and 6 of attached report); • long-term liability (discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 of attached report); and, • greenhouse gas regulatory accounting, which will be the enabling link to incentive structures that make GS economically viable (discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of attached report).

[FN1: These limitations are acknowledged by the agency in the preamble to the rule. (73 FR 43,495)]

8. Failure to resolve the above issues could make the commercial development of CCS impossible.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

The final rulemaking falls within EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for underground injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment. Thus EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address other general issues related to CCS, such as capture and transportation. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the injection of fluids. EPA adds that regulating carbon cap-and trade is outside of the UIC program's authority under SDWA.

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long-term liability from owners or operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21901 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: Overarching recommendations

10. The inability of the proposed rule to manage the issues listed above should be remedied by either:

a. passage of new federal legislation to supplement the UIC program and amend the SDWA; or b. passage of new freestanding federal legislation to regulate GS comprehensively. These options are detailed in Chapter 6 of the attached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE REPORT].

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. As described above, EPA recognizes that a more comprehensive framework may be needed and that some stakeholders remain uncertain about the potential applicability of other federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating the need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for this emerging technology.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21904 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: Issues that would requirement amendment of the SWDA or passage of new legislation

13. Need to balance multiple environmental interests: Protection of drinking water is an essential environmental goal, but must be balanced with avoidance of the dangerous impacts of climate change. As mandated by the SDWA, the UIC Program rules have been developed with the objective of preventing any migration of injected fluid or other contaminants into USDWs. In practice, however, regulatory treatment of injectate migration has been less clear-cut. For example the experience in Florida, discussed in Chapter 6 of the attached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE REPORT], suggests that it would be highly desirable to have arrangements in place ahead of time to allow balancing of potentially conflicting national environmental interests. We recommend that the SDWA be amended to allow balancing multiple

environmental interests.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. As described above, EPA recognizes that a more comprehensive framework may be needed and that some stakeholders remain uncertain about the potential applicability of other federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating the need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for this emerging technology.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23194

Comment: EPA should adhere to its limited authority at this juncture under SDWA and should avoid exceeding that authority. The value of developing a clear regulatory regime will be undermined if that regime is potentially unstable or subject to lengthy delays because of potential susceptibility to attack for failure to adhere to EPA's authority. On the other hand, EPA should strive to anticipate future statutory and regulatory developments in the climate change arena so that any rulemaking has a reasonable chance of melding with such developments.

Response: The final GS rule, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under Part C of the SDWA. The SDWA mandates EPA to establish federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. EPA clarifies that CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA.

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

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, theOffice of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23197

Comment: Conclusion

Montana-Dakota encourages the EPA to consider carefully the link between each proposed provision and its authority to regulate under SDWA. Where the link is more tenuous, the proposed provision may be subject to greater risk of legal challenge, posing uncertainty for those who desire to move ahead with CCS projects. Montana-Dakota believes that the EPA has proposed a rule that, pending

Response: EPA believes that the SDWA provides EPA with adequate authority to regulate injection of CO2 for GS and that the GS rule does not overstep its authority under the SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. The SDWA mandates EPA to establish federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. EPA clarifies CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA.

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249 Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22267

Comment: 8. Put Limits on EPA Authority and Discretion - The Roundtable fully recognizes the difficulty EPA faces in establishing regulations for CCS. We fully support the notion that some level of discretion is necessary for the Agency to adjust to changes or new information that emerges as pilot projects move forward. Having said that, the balance here is a delicate one. Too much discretion can undermine the certainty that is so important to encourage CCS projects. Certainly, any discretion that is afforded should be bound by reasonable criteria. Equally important: EPA should adhere to its limited authority under the SDWA and not use this as an opportunity to seek to extend

it.

Response: While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensurethat, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: David Hawkins Letter ID: 0272 Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council Comment ID: 24076 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: B. Definition of GS

Geologic sequestration and authority

In the proposed rule, EPA has defined geologic sequestration as follows [FR p. 43535, §146.81(d)]:

"Geologic sequestration means the long-term containment of a gaseous, liquid or supercritical carbon dioxide stream in subsurface geologic formations. This term does not apply to its capture or transport."

The proposed rule has cited authority for EPA to regulate GS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, we believe that EPA should exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act as well to regulate GS for the added purpose of preventing releases to the atmosphere, and not just for the purpose of protecting USDWs. Under such authority, the Agency should ensure that any wells permitted for the purposes of GS meet an adequate permanence standard, such as that already promulgated in the UIC rules by the state of Washington, which was based on the IPCC’s findings in its Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage [FN1]:

"Permanent sequestration means the retention of greenhouse gases in a containment system using a method that is in accordance with standards approved by the department and that creates a high degree of confidence that substantially ninety nine percent of the greenhouse gases will remain contained for at least one thousand years." [FN2]

Under this added authority, EPA should ensure that Class VI is adequate for the purposes of protecting USDWs and for preventing releases of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Other wells permitted for GS, whether for that sole purpose or for GS and other purposes, should also be subject to regulatory requirements sufficient both to protect USDWs and to prevent releases of CO2 to the atmosphere. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, adequate site characterization, monitoring, modeling, corrective and remedial action and closure standards, aswell as other requirements that EPA has proposed for Class VI. We cannot endorse the classification of either Class II (as was proposed or as modified by some other commenters) wells or Class VI wells as proposed by EPA in the rule, as the definition only covers protection of USDWs.

[FN1] In its technical summary, IPCC’s Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage states that "With regard to global risks, based on observations and analysis of current CO2 storage sites, natural systems, engineering systems and models, the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years, and is likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years. Similar fractions retained are likely for even longer periods of time, as the risk of leakage is expected to decrease over time as other mechanisms provide additional trapping."

[FN2] WAC 173-407-110 Definitions to Part II.

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0291 Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council Comment ID: 25287 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: Third, we raise the issue of authority. The rulemaking to date has only cited authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As we stated in our comments of Dec24, 2008, an appropriate regulatory regime for GS must also be grounded on authority to prevent re-emissions of injected carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The proposed rule defines GS solely for the purposes of protecting Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). Climate legislation is presently being drafted in Congress however, and will very likely rely on EPA’s injection classes to certify GS. Specifically, the legislation will very likely exempt carbon dioxide emissions from large facilities that are geologically sequesteredaccording to regulations promulgated by EPA and/or other agencies. We stress the importance of EPA being ready and prepared to meet such requirements. Accounting protocols for carbon allowances is an issue that can be dealt with outside the scope of the current rulemaking, and is likely to have a far narrower remit than the current rule’s specific requirements for site screening, monitoring, and various plans. EPA, therefore, must define and regulate GS from the outset in a way that assures not only that USDWs are not endangered, but that GS for the purposes of climate protection is also taking place.

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0292 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 25277 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1290 1.1.2.2 Comments that EPA should regulate CO2 as a pollutant

Comment: The preamble to the proposed GS rule states "EPA is not proposing regulations for CO2 under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in this proposed rulemaking". As noted in our previous letter and comments, it is clear the Clean Air Act provides authority to regulate the geologic sequestration of CO2. Therefore CATF urges EPA to reconsider the position stated in the preamble and propose for comment, as part of the contemplated NODA, the inclusion of GS regulations under the Clean Air Act in the proposed rulemaking.Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: Ginny Brannon Letter ID: 0521 Commenter Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environments Comment ID:

21446

Comment: And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reflected in the Colorado Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize that clean air coal technologies can help us reach this goal and may be a key component in reaching that goal, but emerging solution such as geologic sequestration must be technologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient regulatory framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, the Safe Drinking Water

Response: While EPA agrees that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Karl R. Moor Letter ID: 0109 Commenter Organization: Southern Company, on behalf of Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Comment ID:

21991

Comment: First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. Electricity generation produces 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The Energy Information Administration projects net electric demand will increase 30 percent by 2030, even after taking into account energy- efficiency improvements. New and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is projected to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload generation in the United States and will continue to be an important fuel for generating electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental benefits of carbon capture and storage - in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions - are substantial. Consequently, EEI and its members see carbon capture and storage as a critical element in the full portfolio of options needed not only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but also to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United

States.

Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. We are here today to learn as well as to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern Company and American Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with pilot and demonstration projects involving site characterization, permitting, monitoring and verification, and understanding storage capacity and integrity. Our testimony today is informed by what we have already learned from these projects. Our goal at these hearings - and throughout this process - is to use this experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are part of a clear and flexible regulatory regime that will facilitate the development of, and investment in, carbon capture and storage technology and projects.

As EPA noted in the Preamble to the proposed regulations, its goal is to create a regulatory framework that "supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology." EPA’s regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving carbon capture and storage closerto reality. EEI and its members applaud EPA for taking this step, and encourage EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the regulations. EEI and its members intend to submit detailed written comments on the proposed regulations, but today I would like to highlight several initial areas for EPA

consideration.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Matt Toner Letter ID: 0117 Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 22060

Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR + storage as a valid method of geologic sequestration, subject of course to appropriate measurement, monitoring and site closure, will provide much needed economic incentive to near-term Carbon Capture and Storage efforts, while longer-term Cap & Trade or Taxation schemes develop, in support of saline storage options.

Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

However, EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program until the Director determines under §144.19 that the primary purpose of CO2 injection project is long term storage wherein a Class VI permit is required. Class VI requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS; rather it is designed to ensurethat, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148 Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21749 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: As part of the U.S. strategy for addressing climate change and implementing CCS, EPA has proposed a first-time rule under the SDWA for sequestering CO2 in geologic formations. The proposed rule is based on EPA’s existing regulatory framework for its UIC Program and proposes a new category of injection well (Class VI) along with several technical criteria for its implementation.

The Chamber strongly supports the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and we applaud EPA for its extensive public outreach, stakeholder dialog, and public workshops on this issue. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that this proposed rule accomplishes its objectives to promote a CCS regulatory framework and support "the development of a key climate change mitigation technology," the Chamber offers the following comments on potential legal, economic, regulatory, and technical barriers to CCS deployment that EPA should consider before finalizing this rule.

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of a successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.Commenter Name: James Childress Letter ID: 0158 Commenter Organization: Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) Comment ID: 23754 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: EPA is commended for taking this action that begins the process of providing regulatory clarity to a complex and important topic. In its decision process, EPA needs to consider the importance of CCS to the success of the nation's overall climate change, energy independence and economic growth strategies. Any rule for geologic storage of CO2 needs to provide an unambiguous framework that promotes the development and deployment of CCS while protecting the environment. Also, given the current state of experience in geologic sequestration, any prescription needs to be flexible and adaptive.

Response: While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Scott Davis Letter ID: 0187 Commenter Organization: Arizona Public Service Company Comment ID: 25224

Comment: EPA's proposal represents an important first step in developing a sequestration regulatory program, and APS commends EPA for its effort. Again, APS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking initiative.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: G. Graham Holden Letter ID: 0189 Commenter Organization: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Comment ID: 25242 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: It appears that GS of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants will be a critical part of any national strategy to control greenhouse gas emissions. Oglethorpe appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC programand to develop a new class of injection wells (Class VI) for CO2 GS seems appropriate. We also support EPA's recognition that while the new regulations at

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: G. Graham Holden Letter ID: 0189 Commenter Organization: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Comment ID: 25244

Comment: Oglethorpe Power is encouraged by the efforts EPA has taken thus far to instill "certainty" and "transparency" into the future Class VI CO2 regulatory regime.(Footnote 3) The challenge EPA faces is to craft a Final Rule for

Footnote 3: 73 Fed. Reg. at 43496.

Response: As described above, EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24315

Comment: We strongly support EPA’s effort to develop appropriate regulations governing CO2 injection for purposes of GS. We agree that GS is an important option for the reduction of CO2 emissions, that the UIC program provides the appropriate framework for the regulation of CO2 injection, and that UIC regulations specifically tailored to CO2 injection could play a vital role in facilitating the development and implementation of GS projects while ensuring that appropriate environmental safeguards are in place.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24319 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: We support EPA’s conclusion that the UIC program provides an appropriateframework for regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection for geologic sequestration (GS). The UIC program governs a very wide range of underground injection activities - including the operation of thousands of existing CO2 injection wells - and enjoys an extensively documented record of success. The program has in many respects been a model for Federal-State cooperation, and has benefited from a long history of regulatory and technical discourse among agencies and regulators armed with considerable practical experience and exceptional technical expertise. While the UIC program is focused on the protection of "underground sources of drinking water" (USDWs), this seemingly narrow objective is narrow in name only. In fact, the measures the UIC program relies upon to protect USDWs - measures designed to ensure that injected material remains isolated in the deep subsurface - are by nature sufficient to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

The UIC program currently provides regulations that can be (and are being) successfully applied to CO2 injection into oil and gas reservoirs. We also agree that it makes sense to develop regulations more specifically designed to address CO2 injection in the GS context especially for formations that are not oil and gas reservoirs. Such regulations can and should be designed to build on relevant UIC program experience, including experience with CO2 injection, and should be tailored to address the particular needs for this category of injection activity: both the need to protect USDWs and the need to facilitate use of GS as a technology for reducing CO2 emissions. Those regulations should follow a flexible, performance-based approach that allows regulators to tailor specific permit requirements as appropriate based on the broad range of injection sites and practices that may be encountered in the GS context and on the body of knowledge and experience that will be gained not only from pilot and demonstration projects, but from the initial deployment of commercial scale geologic sequestration projects.

Moreover, the safeguards of the UIC program have been adequate to protect USDWs of all types, including sole source aquifers, from injection that occurs substantially below those aquifers even where that involves drilling through the aquifer to construct wells that will inject into deeper formations. These drilling activities have not resulted in any significant contamination of sole source aquifers and, indeed, have probably served to protect those aquifers by avoiding surface disposal operations that would have been more likely to pose threats of endangerment to drinking water resources.[FN1]

[FN1: Each year, industrial facilities and municipal wastewater treatment plants generate billions of gallons of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Class I injection wells provide a safe means to remove these wastes from the surface environment by isolating them deep below the land surface, away from drinking

water resources.

Class I injection wells inject far below the lowermost USDW. Injection zones typically range from 1,700 to more than 10,000 feet in depth. The injection zone is separated from USDWs by an impermeable "cap" rock called the confining layer, along with additional layers of permeable and impermeable rock and sediment that separate the injection layer from the USDW.http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_class1.html]

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 certainty 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 projects at §146.90 and the post-injection site care process at §146.93. For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22215 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: AWWA and AMWA appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. The proposed regulation is a good technical starting point given the need to have a federal standard to guide permit writers. However, the technology is still in its infancy and as a result we urge EPA to exercise caution and to ensure the protection of USDWs and future USDWs from harmful unintended consequences.

Response: As described above, EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources or have other adverse impacts. EPA agrees that caution is warranted and has, as a result, developed a new well class with requirements tailored to address the unique challenges posed by GS and potential risks associated long-term injection of CO2. These requirements include the tailored AoR delineationprocess per §146.84, monitoring that is appropriate to GS projects per §146.90, and extended postinjection site care per §146.93.

As part of its adaptive rulemaking approach, The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of informationand documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are

necessary.

Also, as EPA noted above the Agency believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for Class VI wells. EPA has considered the results of past research in developing

the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Tiffany Rau Letter ID: 0224 Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21646 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: As an initial matter, we applaud EPA’s significant efforts to include and encourage broad stakeholder participation both before and after publication of the Proposed Rule. Furthermore, it is evident from the Proposed Rule that EPA considered and incorporated many of the stakeholders’ comments from the public workshops. Accordingly, EPA adopted a framework that is intended to encourage the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration or storage ("CCS") in a manner that is protective of underground sources of drinking water ("USDWs"). There is growing consensus among scientists, environmental groups and members of government that CCS will play a critical role in addressing greenhouse gas

emissions.

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23177 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards); 1850 1.4.2 CO2 GS Field Research

Comment: Montana-Dakota strongly supports research and development efforts underway to facilitate commercial-scale CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) projects, and shows this support specifically through its active membership in the Plains CO2 Regional (PCOR) Partnership. Led by the EERC and assisted by its members, PCOR and has developed and is currently carrying out two CO2 geologic sequestration projects designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of CO2 geologic sequestration. As these efforts increase, it is necessary to develop clear, flexible and appropriately tailored regulations to facilitate the development of and spur investment in carbon capture and sequestration technology. The proposed rule assists with creating additional certainty in approaching GS projectdevelopment, however there are some concerns that need to be addressed. MontanaResponse: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects and resultant data and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802) in which the Agency described theresults of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico.

EPA agrees that flexibility to address new research is important. Even after finalizing the rule, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including research by the DOE Partnerships, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

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 certainty 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 projects (§146.90) and the post-injection site care process (§146.93). For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Carter Jr. Letter ID: 0236 Commenter Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Comment ID: 23199

Comment: 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 animportant step in the development of a comprehensive 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 primacy under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class

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 certainty 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 projects at §146.90), and the post-injection site care process at §146.93). For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Philip Papadeas Letter ID: 0238 Commenter Organization: Sandia Technologies, LLC Comment ID: 23343

Comment: Sandia Technologies, LLC provides the following comments to U.S. EPA regarding the proposed Class VI UIC regulations, which in our judgment offer an excellent basis for regulating Geologic Sequestration projects and their anticipated large injectate volumes. The foundation of these rules has been derived from EPA’s highly successful Class I, Class II and Class V programs, which have a proven record of protecting groundwater and the near surface environment while managing large volumes of industrial aqueous waste. There are considerable areas in the rules which are vague in meaning and intent within portions of the proposed regulations.

Response: EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Karl R. Moor Letter ID: 0501 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 21157

Comment: And I'd like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to discuss the rule-making. I'd also like to the congratulate the EPA on the process, there's been much good comment in our industry and other industries. You're familiar with the way and the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for this process with the thoroughness and professionalism.

And I would first like to put the importance of CCS in a context. Electricity generation produces 34 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. So this technology is critical toaddress that share of CO2 emissions in the United States.

As EPA noted in the preamble in its proposed regulations, the goal is to create a regulatory framework that supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key climate change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving the country forward and for securing the reality being expressed in the preamble.

EEI and its member companies not only applaud you for the process, we also think that the, the goals that we are, have articulated in the technology are the right goals. And we are supportive in that regard as well.

But we do have several key messages which, which may seem critical at some level, but we mean them as a source of constructive review of the regulations and hopefully a way of improving them.

The key, the two key points that we would leave you with today are this, first, these regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without, and this is key, without unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide injection storage.

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 believes the rule does not “stigmatize” injection of carbon dioxide. Rather, the requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Michele Schoepper Letter ID: 0503 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 21172

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches.

Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring requirements, although there are several aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in thepresence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Matt Toner Letter ID: 0506 Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21187

Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage as a valid method of geologic sequestration subject, of course, to appropriate measurement, monitoring, and site closure, would provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or taxation schemes can be developed.

Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program until the Director determines under §144.19 that the primary purpose of CO2 injection project is long term storage wherein a Class VI permit is required. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or incentivize GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0510 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21218

Comment: And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from that sort of slap on the wrist to some compliments. We have that, we think EPA deserves for the work on

this rule.

Despite having to begin on kind of a negative note I want to stress that we think that adequate, effective sequestration regulations are definitely in sight, and there is much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. And we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature of technical assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21416

Comment: MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson with the Environmental Defense

Fund and I think I would like to begin by complimenting the EPA for having done generally an excellent job with this proposed rule making.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Steve Crookshank Letter ID: 0523 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) Comment ID: 21355

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule and of the use of performance based approaches. Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further improvement. The first of these is the

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Mike Moore Letter ID: 0532 Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association (NACCSA) Comment ID:

21364

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regulations. CCS holds significant promise

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0535 Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID:

21432

Comment: Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important undertaking it will have significant, very practical and cost implications for the entire power industry. While the challenges and uncertainties associated with the development of large scale commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage are significant, the utility industry certainly would be at the forefront of these controls. Given the direct impact this program will have on the electric industry, we appreciate EPA's goal of establishing certainty and transparency to the requirements of Class VI carbon dioxide injection. It is also crucial however for the regulations to reflect the challenges inherent in crafting controls for commercial CO2 injection and storage activities when such large scale commercial operations are in the planning stage.

Response: Comments related to challenges industry will face in crafting control technology for CO2 injection that are not related to the endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536 Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21374

Comment: I am here this morning to speak in support of the important work EPA is undertaking to establish regulations governing the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share with you a few of the lessons we have learned as we have studied the feasibility of developing an IGCC project with carbon capture.

Response: Comments related to the feasibility of developing IGCC projects not related to preventing endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536 Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21376

Comment: Finally and most relevant to today's discussion we learned that permanent storage of CO2 can be done safely and without harm to the environment as long as we apply the right knowledge base, detailed site specific information, technical expertise and sound management practices. This is where EPA's proposed regulations for geologic storage of CO2 come into the picture. Because as we went forward with our investigations over the last years, we also came to understand something that caused us as much concern in terms of our IGCC project. We came to understand that government regulation and oversight of underground sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty. Nobody knew exactly who had authority over what and what requirements might apply to a clean coal power plant project that included geologic sequestration. We realized that this regulatory uncertainty in time created major uncertainties for our project with regard to getting necessary environmental and other approvals in a timely fashion. With regard to obtaining insurance and financial assurances needed to manage project risk and liability and with regard to establishing confidence and community acceptance of the project.

In short we came to understand the regulatory situation created an environment of uncertainty in which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a billion dollars could not responsibly proceed. This is why I am here this morning to speak in favor of what EPA is doing to address a critical element in our national response to climate change and why I think the real world experience Excel Energy has gained in Colorado would be of value in this rulemaking process. The company will join other electric utilities in submitting detailed written comments we hope will lay groundwork for a program that will be protective, but practical and provide the certainty needed to make carbon sequestration a viable near term climate mitigation option for the industry.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 certainty 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 projects at §146.90), and the post-injection site care process at §146.93). For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to

the final GS rule. To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types ofinformation and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Gerald C. Blount Letter ID: 0107

Comment ID: 21940 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: As a concerned practicing geoscientist I believe it is reasonable to regulate the geologic storage of CO2 by creating a new well class (Class VI) within the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and it is necessary to protect underground drinking water sources. However, it may not be appropriate to categorically limit storage to formations with water salinity greater than 10,000 parts per million.

Response: EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Comments related to redefining or modifying the definition of USDWs under 40 CFR 144.3 are outside the scope of the rulemaking. The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the program’s tradition of ensuring the protection of USDWs by prohibiting injection of carbon dioxide into USDWs. EPA clarifies that all Class VI injection must be into non-USDWs, which are formations with water salinity greater than 10,000 parts per million. The mandate as required by the SDWA of any Federally approved UIC Program (whether administered by a State, Territory, Tribe or EPA) is the protection of USDWs. This includes not only those formations that are presently being used for drinking water, but also those that can reasonably be expected to be used in the future. EPA has established through its UIC regulations that USDWs are underground aquifers with less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) and which contain a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system (40 CFR 144.3). EPA defines saline formations as deep and geographically extensive sedimentary rock layers saturated with waters or brines that have a high total dissolved solids (TDS) content (i.e., over 10,000 mg/L TDS).

EPA notes that owners or operators of Class II wells have the option to expand aquifer exemptions that have already been granted for purposes of Class VI injection under §144.7(d). The owner or operator must meet the requirements found in 146.4(d).Commenter Name: John Stormon Letter ID: 0123 Commenter Organization: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Comment ID: 22996 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology

Comment: federal UIC regulations for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. It is good to see that EPA has proposed a well defined, environmentally protective program through these rules for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. I'm sure that EPA will receive many comments targeted at weakening or removing key parts of the proposed regulatory program; contrary to the arguments of some industry voices, geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide is new, untested technology that, if poorly implemented, could have large and long lasting environmental impacts including potentially degrading the quality of our ground water resources (USDW). Please help to encourage the use of this important technology by keeping a strong, environmentally protective regulatory program. One early disaster could destroy geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide as a strategy we can use to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Caution is warranted in the first set of regulations. Once experience with geologic sequestration has been gained, the regulations may be streamlined where appropriate.

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 certainty 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 projects at §146.90 and the post-injection site care process at §146.93. For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Jonathan Pershing Letter ID: 0124 Commenter Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI) Comment ID: 23042

Comment: The draft EPA UIC Class VI rule is largely consistent with the content of the CCS Guidelines. In many ways the similarities between the EPA approach and CCS Guidelines are more important than the differences because they demonstrate the need for site specific monitoring plans and risk assessments. Both frameworks also include monitoring and risk assessments of both the CO2 plume and associated area of elevated pressure, which is essential. The draft rulerequires periodic updates to submitted plans, which is consistent with the CCS Guidelines emphasis on integrated planning and operation.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and is aware of WRI's guidelines and notes that there are many similarities between WRI's guidelines and the GS regulation, including agreement regarding the relevant aspects of GS that warrant a tailored regulatory approach that is appropriate to the unique nature of GS. These documents are referenced in the final rule and are available in the docket for this rulemaking. For additional information, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21523

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

issues.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Carl Carlsson Letter ID: 0131 Commenter Organization: SUEZ Energy Generation NA, LLC Comment ID: 21541

Comment: Conclusion In summary, SEGNA is supportive of EPA's efforts to provide regulatory clarity for geologic sequestration of CO2. We encourage EPA to consider the above recommendations to ensure that geologic sequestration of CO2 is conducted in an environmentally safe and technically sound manner, while avoiding unnecessary technical and regulatory complexity. An appropriate balance between these considerations will maximize the potential for this technology toplay a significant role in addressing the challenges of climate change.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 certainty 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 projects at §146.90 and the post-injection site care process at §146.93. For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21621

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: Conclusion

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and other federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS methods, and to expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface movement of CO2 to include the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. Additionally, the Sierra Club urges the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to substantially increase their commitment to the funding of research and development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as innovative biological and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby increasing public acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere during this period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources.

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

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment ofCCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. Please also see the preamble section entitled, “What Steps Did EPA Take to Develop This Rulemaking?”

EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology (www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Dawn A. Thorne Letter ID:

0134 Commenter Organization: University of Utah Energy and Geoscience Institute on behalf of the Southwest Regional Partnership Comment

ID: 21652

Comment: The Southwest Regional Partnership (SWP) is one of seven (7) regional partnerships selected by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to characterize, evaluate, test, and verify the feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration within our particular region. As such, the SWP is currently conducting three (3) geologic sequestration (GS) pilot studies and one (1) terrestrial sequestration project, with a fourth GS pilot study to begin in the middle of 2009. The SWP would like to commend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for recognizing the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and making an effort to create a sound regulatory process that is protective of human health and the environment. On behalf of the SWP, we would like to submit the following comments on the proposed rule to public record:Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23089

Comment: the Injection and GS of CO2. We strongly support the broad intent of the rule and believe it will ultimately foster accelerated implementation of carbon management programs. The US Department of Energy has identified numerous feasible locations across the country, some of which are very large and extensive, for geologic sequestration. Some of these are today being used with DOE’s Regional Testing Programs.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. For additional information on site characterization, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23091 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3820 2.3.1 Well construction procedures

Comment: 2.Well installation, operation, monitoring, record keeping, and corrective action are similarly rigorous and reasonably pragmatic; and they materially minimize the potential for inappropriate actions.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that protection of USDWs from endangerment and prevention of fluid movement between formations is paramount. Appropriately designed and constructed wells are necessary to prevent endangerment to USDWs and maintain integrity of the well throughout the lifetime of a GS project. This is the foundation of the requirements for construction and pre-operational testing of Class VI wells at §§146.86 and 146.87.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence ofwater, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Richard Driggans Letter ID: 0145 Commenter Organization: Tennessee Valley Authority Comment ID: 23156

Comment: TVA believes that a Class VI permitting program is reasonable and necessary before GS can be implemented at the operational scale necessary for mitigating power plant CO2 emissions, and TVA applauds EPA for this initial effort to provide a regulatory framework and some degree of regulatory certainty for GS under the UIC program. TVA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s

Response: EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146 Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21705

Comment: ODEC appreciates EPA's efforts to develop regulations that will help insure C02 geological sequestration (GS) activities can move forward in an orderly manner. Please consider the attached comments that are intended to help promote final GS regulations that will aid the development of full scale, commercial GS activities while remaining protective of the environment. If you have any

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presenceof water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146 Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21706 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: ODEC greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146 Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21708

Comment: It appears that GS of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants will be a necessary part of any national strategy to control green house gas emissions. ODEC has 50% undivided interest in the Clover Power Station and pursuing the licensing of a new coal plant where these coal-fired power plants are likely to be directly affected by new GS regulations. Additionally, ODEC owns combustion turbines fueled with natural gas and fuel oil as back up and diesel generators. The regulations could have significant financial and operational impacts on ODEC and we ask EPA to carefully consider our comments because of the significant stake we have in the outcome of this impOliant rulemaking. ODEC is a member of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ("NRECA"). NRECA will also be submitting comments on the proposed UIC rules. ODEC supports NRECA's comments, and incorporates them here by reference.

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not regulate use of resources, or cost reduction associated with GS into various formations. The focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of otherFederal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Brianne Metzger Letter ID: 0151 Commenter Organization: Spectra Energy Corp Comment ID: 21815

Comment: Spectra Energy Corp ("Spectra" or "Spectra Energy") appreciates this opportunity to submit for the U.S. EPA’s ("EPA" or "Agency") consideration the following comments regarding the Agency’s proposed development of Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (hereafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule" or "GS Rule"). 73 Fed. Reg. 43491 (July 25, 2008). We appreciate the Agency’s recognition of the importance of the GS Rule in the larger context of carbon, capture and sequestration ("CCS") and we acknowledge the Agency’s tremendous work in proposing this rule within such a short schedule, especially given the complexities of the issue. Although we have a number of concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed technical requirements and potential liabilities, we believe that the Proposed Rule provides a solid foundation toward promulgating the Final Rule.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS, including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Brianne Metzger Letter ID: 0151 Commenter Organization: Spectra Energy Corp Comment ID: 21816 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: Spectra believes the GS Rule should be designed to encourage carbon capture and sequestration as an integral part of any national climate change policy. Second, while Spectra appreciates many of the unknowns that currently exist with respect to commercial scale GS operations, sour CO2 [1] from natural gas operations has been safely injected for nearly two decades and such operations present significantopportunities for further reductions in atmospheric CO2 emission through longterm geologic sequestration. Lastly, Spectra and many others within the industry have ongoing operations in North America and elsewhere, and we are concerned that, should EPA impose excessive or unreasonable requirements as part of the GS Rule, this could have negative implications for GS activities in other jurisdictions such as Canada - where the majority of Spectra’s current geologicsequestration activities occur.

1 The term sour CO2 (a/k/a "acid gas") is used to describe the by-product generated from natural gas processing and is primarily a mixture of CO2 and H2S but may also contain a small amount of impurities.

Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to encourage GS or CCS in the US or elsewhere; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of USDWs within the United States.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153 Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Comment ID:

22133

Comment: We appreciate the chance to comment on the rules. In general we believe EPA has done a good job in formulating rules that will be protective of underground sources of drinking water (USDW) without being overly stringent on operators, given the potential size, scope and impact of the sequestration operations. Our

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155 Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21253 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Carbon capture technologies have been developed and there is reason to expect that CO2 can be successfully stored on a long-term basis in properly selected and managed geologic formations. Full commercialization will require additional economic incentives and early demonstration projects at large scale. In addition, it is important for business planning purposes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt reasonable rules governing CO2 storage in geologic formations.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155 Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21254 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: The EPA is presently considering how CO2 sequestration should be regulated under the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The Partnership is pleased that this work is a priority for the agency. We encourage EPA to develop

rules that:

1. Assure that sites are properly selected managed and monitored in order to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW), especially sole source aquifers.

Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to protect USDWs from endangerment through permitting, siting, construction, operation, injection, and post-injection site care and site closure requirements that are tailored to address the unique nature of GS.

EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the

evaluation of site characteristics.

For additional information on site characterization and testing and monitoring requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155 Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21262

Comment: The Partnership supports EPA's efforts to implement rules governing long termstorage of CO2 in geologic formations and further encourages the agency to seek to harmonize its rules with international rules and best practices.

Response: In response to the comments suggesting that EPA harmonize with international rules and best practices, EPA clarifies that it is monitoring the progress of international research and legislative developments; a paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation, entitled " International GS Efforts: A Look at the Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah Projects and other International Regulatory Developments " is in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of USDWs within the United States.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including international projects, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: M. Michael Rounds Letter ID: 0159 Commenter Organization: Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) Comment ID: 22222

Comment: On behalf of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), we commend the Environmental Protection Agency on its effort to facilitate the injection of CO2 for long-term geologic sequestration (GS). Greater regulatory certainty will help advance the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration projects. Our comments are based on the role of geological sequestration within the context of established MGA regional goals and objectives. We offer comments below in the following areas: (1) the adaptive approach, (2) the implications of the rule on CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and (3) the role of states in implementation of the rule.

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 certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93).

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Joseph Eutizi Letter ID: 0161 Commenter Organization: San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc Comment ID: 21280 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: San Miguel greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well is appropriate. San Miguel also appreciates EPA's recognition that while the new

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wellsare necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21309 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: NRECA greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well is appropriate.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Commenter Name: Erik Silvola Letter ID: 0171 Commenter Organization: Great River Energy Comment ID: 23437 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: Great River Energy (GRE) greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well is appropriate. GRE also appreciates EPA's recognition that while the new regulations at hand must be within the scope of the SDWA, there are a number of very important issues (such as long term liability) that are outside the scope of the act but are highly pertinent to developing a viable GS program and we are glad that EPA is willing to discuss these issues as part of this regulatory proposal.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection forGS.

EPA understands that there are a number of issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking and SDWA authority that are important to commenters, such as long-term liability. EPA clarifies that long-term liability is a broad concept that includes many mechanisms, however, for purposes of the SDWA there are liability mechanisms available under §§ 1423 and 1431 for those activities that endanger USDWs. EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long-term liability from owners or operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator. Please see the preamble discussion on financial responsibility and liability.

Commenter Name: James Taft Letter ID: 0172 Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Comment ID:

23449 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general; 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: Overall Comments

ASDWA and its members appreciate EPA’s efforts to develop this rule under very limited time constraints and agree with EPA’s plan to create a new class of wells for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration sites. States believe that all appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure the effectiveness of Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a tool to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, as well as avoid potential unintended consequences that could have a negative impact on Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW). Additional research and data are needed to ensure that this rule is fully protective of all potential drinking

water sources.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23549 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Executive Summary

Addressing climate change concerns requires a full commitment to development and commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. EEI thus supports the development of clear, flexible and appropriately tailored regulatory regimes that will facilitate development of and investment in CCS technology and projects while protecting against potential environmental risks. We applaud the Agency for taking this crucial first step toward establishing such a regime for geological sequestration (GS). Recognizing the significance of EPA‘s initiative in proposing regulations for the injection and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) under the Safe Drinking Water Act‘s (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, EEI appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the process and to share our suggestions for changes to the proposed rule. Incorporation of our comments into the final rule will serve to promote the dual goals of promoting the commercialization of CCS technology and preventing potentially undesirable impacts to drinking water resources.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23561 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: I. General Principles Applicable To EPA's GS Regulatory Effort

As we noted in our prior comments, addressing climate change concerns requires a full commitment to development and commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. To put the need for this commitment in context, consider that electricity generation is responsible for 34 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 40 percent of CO2 in the U.S. The Energy Information Administration projects net electric demand will increase 30 percent by 2030,even after taking into account energy-efficiency improvements. New and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is projected to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload generation in the U.S. and will continue to be an important fuel for generating electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental benefits of CCS - in terms of reduced or avoided CO2 emissions - are substantial. Consequently, EEI and our members see CCS as a critical element in the full portfolio of options needed not only to reduce CO2 emissions, but also to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the nation.

EEI thus supports the development of clear, flexible and appropriately tailored regulatory regimes that will facilitate development of and investment in CCS technology and projects while protecting against potential environmental risks. We applaud the Agency for taking this crucial first step toward establishing such a regime for GS. Recognizing the significance of EPA's initiative in proposing regulations for the injection and storage of CO2 under SDWA's UIC program, EEI appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the process and to share our suggestions for changes to the proposed rules. Incorporation of our comments into the final rules will serve to promote the dual goals of promoting the commercialization of CCS technology and preventing potentially undesirable impacts to drinking water resources.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93).

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183 Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center Comment ID:

25169 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed

Comment: VII. ConclusionELPC and ETIP support many portions of the EPA's proposed regulations and commend the EPA for implementing safeguards for GS that go beyond those required for other classes of injection wells. For example, we are pleased to see that EPA has provided flexibility in the choice of construction materials used by well owners while preserving rigorous construction standards. Our primary objection to the regulations, however, is that they constitute a piecemeal approach to regulation ofGS (and CCS), thus leaving several issues unaccounted for. The lack of certainty on issues of liability, financial assurance, and well-closure standards, could both stifle the use ofGS as a climate change mitigation tool and place the public at greater risk.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators; however the Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator. EPA notes that the final rule clarifies the requirements for the use of financial responsibility instruments for GS. In addition, the final rule requires owners or operators to address well plugging in well plugging plans submitted with the Class VI permit application. EPA is developing guidance manuals for owners or operators that describe the financial responsibility and injection well plugging requirements in the

GS rule.

Commenter Name: Jeff W. Sheets Letter ID: 0192 Commenter Organization: ConocoPhillips Comment ID: 23887 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule; 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards)

Comment: Protection of U.S. Drinking Water (USDW) sources is paramount and a central requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and ConocoPhillips wholeheartedly supports high standards for protection of current and potential future USDWs. We believe that maintaining focus on several key principles can ensure rulemaking that is protective and flexible to allow site specific considerations while maintaining cost-effective operations. We applaud EPA's work to that end. We support most concepts, elements and details in the proposed requirements, and provide our comments to reinforce and amplify a few issues which we believe flow from the following important key principles:

o All UIC well classes have requirements fully designed to protect USDW's.o The oil and gas industry's experience with CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) provides a track record of USDW protection that can enhance EPA's rulemaking.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule was conducted at ER sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24563

Comment: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the EPA's proposed regulations governing underground injection of carbon dioxide for geologic sequestration. Anadarko feels the EPA has done a very good job on many critical aspects of this very important rule including the ability to sequester CO2 under current Class II regulations during enhanced recovery and the protective nature of the current Class II operations. In addition, we would like to recommend several modifications based on our experiences with conducting Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Currently, Anadarko operates two EOR projects that

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

Also, since field experience and well construction, injection, and monitoring information relevant to GS comes from operations that inject acid gas or inject CO2 for ER, the Agency has conducted evaluations regarding these commercial field operations and continues to track GS-relevant developments in these commercial operations. Some of the research that informs the final GS rulewas conducted at ER sites.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22151

Comment: Enclosed please find the comments of Southern Company on the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rule for Geologic Sequestration ("GS") of Carbon Dioxide ("C02") under the Underground Injection Control ("UIC") Program. Southern Company believes that carbon capture and storage has the potential to

lead to substantial environmental benefits in terms of avoided CO2 emissions.Therefore, a workable CCS program, including a regulatory framework for longterm CO2 sequestration as anticipated by this rulemaking, is an essential element in the full portfolio of options needed to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United States while reducing CO2 emissions.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking and look forward to continuing to work with EPA on this issue.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22153 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: of energy sources including renewable energy. Southern Company has already begun a CO2 injection project at a deep saline-filled geologic formation in Mississippi as part of the Southeast Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership. We believe that carbon capture and storage ("CCS") is critical to the likely federal goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to the implementation of a number of federal and state energy reform initiatives; we are proud of our efforts to help bring this important technology towards commercial viability and generally support EPA's efforts in this rulemaking.

Carbon capture and storage has the potential to lead to substantial environmental benefits in terms of avoided CO2 emissions. Therefore, a workable CCS program, including a regulatory framework for long-term carbon dioxide sequestration as anticipated by this rulemaking, is an essential element in the full portfolio of options needed to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United States while reducing CO2

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a mannerthat protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22177 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: Southern Company applauds the EPA's initial efforts to create a clear and flexible regulatory scheme that will promote carbon capture and storage technology and projects while protecting underground sources of drinking water. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking and look forward to continuing to work with EPA on this important issue.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22188

Comment: We appreciate the expertise from your staff, and the public workshops and meetings that were held by your agency during the deliberative process. We stand ready to work with you and the state regulatory agencies in implementing the new

rule.

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Stroben Letter ID: 0209 Commenter Organization: Duke Energy Comment ID: 22676

Comment: Duke Energy supports EPA’s efforts to develop a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration ("GS") of carbon dioxide ("CO2"). Coal, the nation’s most abundant natural energy resource, accounts for approximately 50% of the electricity consumed in the U.S. today. Development of a workable GS regulatory program is critical to this country’s ability to make substantial reductions in CO2 emissions while keeping coal as a viable energy resource that contributes to the nation’s energy independence.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presenceof water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Michael Stroben Letter ID: 0209 Commenter Organization: Duke Energy Comment ID: 22689

Comment: CONCLUSION

Duke Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this important rulemaking. Having a workable regulatory program in place for the geologic sequestration of CO2 is absolutely essential to this country’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost and without eliminating coal as a viable energy resource.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: John King Letter ID: 0211 Commenter Organization: Shell Exploration and Production Company (SEPCo) Comment ID:

22745

Comment: I. INTRODUCTION

A. Shell Exploration & Production Company (SEPCo) appreciates this opportunity to provide comment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its proposed rule regarding Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells.

B. SEPCo strongly supports EPA’s effort to develop appropriate regulations governing CO2 injection for purposes of GS. SEPCo agrees that GS is an important option for the reduction of CO2 emissions, that the UIC program provides an appropriate framework for the regulation of CO2 injection, and that UIC regulations specifically tailored to CO2 injection could play a vital role in facilitating the development and implementation of GS projects while ensuring that appropriate environmental safeguards are in place.

C. As EPA has correctly recognized, it is critical that any UIC program regulation addressing GS be designed to achieve two goals. First, such a rule should ensure that CO2 injection is conducted in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Second, such a rule should effectively facilitate and encourage GS as a means to address climate change through the reduction of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.D. Fortunately, there is abundant evidence that CO2 injection can be accomplished in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Indeed there has been a long history of successful injection well operation in the United States, and multiple studies have confirmed that the UIC program has been remarkably effective in ensuring protection of human health and the environment. While GS projects are likely to be large in scale, it is important to recognize that the injection of CO2 is nothing new. To the contrary, CO2 has been injected for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR/EGR) for more than thirty-five years, and the UIC program already regulates more than ten thousand CO2 injection wells that have successfully injected more than half a billion tons of CO2. We therefore have a vast body of experience demonstrating that CO2 injection can be conducted without adverse impacts on human health and

the environment.

E. To achieve its goals for this rulemaking - to address the risks of CO2 injection and promote the use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions - we ask that EPA utilize more of the successful practices from the experience detailed above in its final decision on each of the requirements it has proposed for CO2 injection. SEPCo believes, as further detailed in these comments that the

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

Also, since field experience and well construction, injection, and monitoring information relevant to GS comes from operations that inject acid gas or inject CO2 for ER, the Agency has conducted evaluations regarding these commercial field operations and continues to track GS-relevant developments in these commercial operations. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule

was conducted at ER sites.

Commenter Name: John King Letter ID: 0211 Commenter Organization: Shell Exploration and Production Company (SEPCo) Comment ID:

22756

Comment: A. SEPCo Supports Development of Appropriate UIC Program Regulations for GS.

SEPCo strongly supports the conclusion that the UIC program provides the appropriate framework for regulation of CO2 injection for GS. The UIC program governs a very wide range of underground injection activities - including the operation of tens of thousands of existing CO2 injection wells - and enjoys an enviable and extensively documented record of success. The program has in manyrespects been a model for Federal-State cooperation, and has benefited from a long history of regulatory and technical discourse among agencies and regulators armed with considerable practical experience and exceptional technical expertise. While the UIC program is focused on the protection of "underground sources of drinking water" (USDWs), this seemingly narrow objective is narrow in name only. In fact, the measures the UIC program relies upon to protect USDWs - measures designed to ensure that injected material remains isolated in the deep subsurface - are by nature sufficient to ensure protection of human health and

the environment.

The UIC program currently provides regulations that are being successfully applied to CO2 injection. Nevertheless, SEPCo agrees with EPA in the need to develop regulations more specifically designed to address CO2 injection in the GS context. Our primary recommendation is that such regulations build on relevant UIC program experience, including experience with CO2 injection, and should be tailored to address the particular needs for this category of injection activity: both the need to protect USDWs and the need to facilitate use of GS as a technology for reducing CO2 emissions. In developing such

Response: As described above, EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22923

Comment: AMWA supports EPA’s rulemaking to provide a framework for the permitting of carbon sequestration wells, recognizing that state agencies are looking to EPA to provide this leadership since carbon sequestration wells are already being piloted, yet there is no comprehensive federal standard currently in place. AMWA’s comments are comprised of general comments about the proposal as well as several responses to specific EPA requests for comment.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Dennis R. James Letter ID: 0214 Commenter Organization: North American Coal Corporation (NAC) Comment ID: 22957

Comment: A. NAC supports the Administration in its efforts to develop regulations that will protect our valuable groundwater resources. If laws or regulations are promulgated that restrict the emissions of CO2, then sequestration will be the only viable way to dispose of CO2 until beneficial uses can be developed.Sequestration activities will need to be regulated to insure our environment and ALL of our natural resources are protected.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Tiffany Rau Letter ID: 0224 Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21702

Comment: CONCLUSION

HEI commends EPA for the tremendous amount of work that EPA has done in preparing the Preamble and Proposed Rule in an expedited timeframe. After due consideration of studies and analyses performed by international research organizations, non-governmental organizations, sister-agencies, and scientists worldwide, EPA’s research has determined that CCS could be "a key mitigation technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions," and CCS has the "potential to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios." (73 Fed. Reg. at 45496.) HEI applauds EPA’s willingness to play a significant role in this Nation’s strategy to address climate change. We are very supportive of EPA’s effort to implement a regulatory scheme that will both protect one of our vital resources, USDWs, and facilitate the implementation of CCS technology and geologic sequestration of CO2.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Brian Williams Letter ID: 0225 Commenter Organization: BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BP) Comment ID: 21763

Comment: CONCLUSION

BP commends EPA for the tremendous amount of work that EPA has done in preparing the Preamble and Proposed Rule in an expedited timeframe. After due consideration of studies and analyses performed by international research organizations, non-governmental organizations, sister-agencies, and scientists worldwide, EPA’s research has determined that CCS could be "a key mitigation technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions," and CCS has the"potential to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios." (73 Fed. Reg. at 45496.) BP applauds EPA’s willingness to play a significant role in this Nation’s strategy to address climate change. We are very supportive of EPA’s effort to implement a regulatory scheme that will both protect one of our vital resources, USDWs, and facilitate the implementation of CCS technology and geologic sequestration of CO2.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Andrew Duguid Letter ID: 0226 Commenter Organization: Schlumberger Carbon Services Comment ID: 23995

Comment: Schlumberger feels that the proposed rule for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide is a very good start and relatively few changes are needed to create a final rule under which geologic CO2 sequestration can become a commercial industry and an effective piece in the solution to climate change.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: David L. Armstrong Letter ID: 0231 Commenter Organization: Kentucky Public Service Commission Comment ID: 21891

Comment: Broadly speaking the proposed rule appears to be intended to help protect underground sources of drinking water from the possible contaminating effects of injecting massive amounts of compressed C02 into underground geological formations for long-term geological sequestration. As over 107 million peoplewithin the United States obtain their drinking water from underground sourcesover 400,000 of whom are in the Commonwealth of Kentucky-it is vital that the nation's drinking water supply be protected from such contamination. [FN1]

[FN1: See, "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007," pp. 4-5, found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2007.pdf.]

KPSC also commends EPA for its efforts in formulating the proposed rule, because it will further the prospect of deploying effective technological solutions to the problem of capturing and sequestering carbon emissions from coal combustionand gasification, as it appears likely that federal legislation to limit carbon

emissions will become law in the future.

Without clear rules to govern the underground injection and long-term equestration of C02, the full-scale deployment of C02 capture and sequestration technology on a nationwide basis could be subject to inconsistent and uncertain treatment under diverse state regulatory procedures. That, in turn, could unnecessarily complicate and forestall the process of effectively dealing with climate change, which would be especially vexing for states like Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming whose coal reserves will continue to be used to ensure the nation's energy independence

into the future.

Furthermore, KPSC supports the goal of EPA's proposed rule to, "enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated C02 emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy sources are developed in the coming decades. [FN2] KPSC also supports EPA's "strategy to address climate change through: (1) Slowing the growth of emissions; (2) strengthening science, technology and institutions; and (3) enhancing international cooperation ." [FN3]

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21898

Comment: Overarching issues and concerns

6. We applaud EPA’s work toward developing regulations for GS. It is urgent that the U.S. moves forward with deployment of CCS technologies: EPA’s effort to write rules for GS wells incorporating sound scientific and technical knowledge contributes to creating a regulatory framework that ensures that GS will be done in a manner that is safe and environmentally sound. The speed with which EPA drafted these rules, and the inclusiveness of the rulewriting process, are well matched to the urgency and broad interest in the problem.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presenceof water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Steven B. Corneli Letter ID: 0234 Commenter Organization: NRG Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23159 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: NRG appreciates the substantial efforts which have been part of this proposal development governing CO2 injection for the purpose of GS. As a company, NRG is committed to effectively addressing climate change, and believes that GS is a critical component for the reduction of CO2 emissions. In general, NRG supports and commends the efforts of the EPA to develop a rational approach that would (1) create a new category of injection wells (i.e., Class VI) under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and (2) establishes Federal regulations that are specifically tailored to CO2 injection for GS. However, we

Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

The EPA believes the final rulemaking falls within EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for underground injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment. Thus, EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address other issues related to CCS, such as capture and transportation.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23175

Comment: Dakota appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed rule. The proposed regulation provides a critical framework for implementing future CO2 GS projects in which CO2 is captured and sequestered from fossil-fired power generating facilities.

Response: EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS, including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23198Comment: projects. Montana-Dakota believes that the EPA has proposed a rule that, pending the consideration of the above recommendations, should provide additional certainty for further CCS project development.

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 certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93).

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22271 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: It is also essential that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take supplemental action, based on other (non-SDWA) authority, to provide additional assurance that injected CO2 will not be released into the atmosphere in a way that adversely impacts the climate or otherwise endangers public health and welfare. Generally, the steps needed to protect USDWs are also needed in order to prevent emissions to the atmosphere. Supplemental steps citing additional authority should also guarantee that CO2 injected into geologic formations stays out of the atmosphere. This should be done according to a permanence (performance) standard, which will certify CO2 as ‘geologically sequestered’ for that purpose, in addition to protecting USDWs. These are needed, as none of the existing or proposed injection classes are adequate for the task of certifying CO2 as permanently sequestered for the purposes of preventing atmospheric releases. In order to be fully protective of the environment, Congress will also need to pass comprehensive cap and trade legislation to control the emission of greenhouse gases from all anthropogenic sources. But the need for such legislation is not a basis for deferring the adoption of EPA rules to protect USDWs or to assure that injected CO2 does not result in harmful releases to the atmosphere.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. "Cap and trade" legislation is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22281

Comment: C. The Proposed Rule Has Many Positive Features

Before offering comments on the proposal itself, we want to praise and lend our support to EPA for incorporating, or in some cases intending to incorporate, a number of features of the rule that we regard not solely as desirable, but

essential. These include:

• specific requirements for a comprehensive characterization before deeming a sequestration site as appropriate for injection; • monitoring requirements for tracking the behavior and location of CO2 in the subsurface, validating its confinement, or detecting unwanted behavior early to allow for corrective action; • the need to compile a monitoring plan, a site care and closure plan and a remedial response plan prior to obtaining a permit; • the requirement to update and report on these plans, including the area of review adjustment process, as monitoring and operational data become available; • a requirement for a continuous feedback loop between monitoring and modeling, whereby one updates the other in order to optimize operations and refine simulations; and • a criterion for site closure that is not based on the mere passage of a set number of years, but on the finding that drinking water is not endangered and that the project meets the necessary performance standards (we note, however, that articulation of the performance standards that need to be met in order to make such a finding is one of the areas where the rule needs work).

These features are captured to differing extents by the proposed rule’s language, and our suggested changes below serve to reinforce these features. Some of these features appropriately go beyond what is currently required under existing well classes in the UIC program. We regard them as necessary for the effective regulation of GS in the Class VI context, and strongly support them. We would therefore label our proposed changes as technical modifications, and not radical changes in the rule. Even though these strengthening changes are needed, we urge EPA to maintain the basic structure of the rule as proposed andthank the drafting working group for producing the proposed rule in a short

timeframe.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. For additional information, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Walter L. Baker Letter ID: 0253 Commenter Organization: Utah Division of Water Quality Comment ID: 22336

Comment: Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells. We commend EPA’s efforts in engaging international, national, state, and local experts from a broad spectrum of relevant fields to inform the development of the proposed rule. Finalizing the rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells will make significant progress in removing one of the identified (GAO, September 2008) barriers to implementing large-scale commercial carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) projects, namely the legal and regulatory uncertainties associated with CCGS, particularly with regards to injection and storage of CO2.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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, and acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty. The final GS requirements provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93). EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Dianna Tickner Letter ID: 0262Commenter Organization: Peabody Energy Comment ID: 22990

Comment: The following general comments are submitted by Peabody Energy in response to EPA's proposed federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for the underground injection of carbon dioxide ("CO2") for the purpose of geologic sequestration. EPA is to be commended for beginning the process to provide regulatory clarity for CO2 sequestration.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Michael Moore Letter ID: 0265 Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association (NACCSA) Comment ID:

22849

Comment: EPA's proposed regulations are a needed first step toward establishing a stable, predictable, and workable regulatory framework that appropriately encourages the development of a CCS industry to both safely mitigate GHG emissions and maximize energy production.

Response: While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. For additional information on EPA’s authority to promulgate this rulemaking, see the preamble section on "Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?"

Commenter Name: William Herz Letter ID: 0266 Commenter Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 22875

Comment: General Comments

TFI wishes to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed requirements for underground injection of CO2 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),and for holding a public hearing on the subject. TFI is generally supportive of the proposed rules, but would ask for additional regulatory clarification and/or guidance for potential upstream industrial clients.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26138

Comment: EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking [FN 2] to enable the permitting of a new class of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. We believe that the proposed rule constitutes a significant step forward for the geologic sequestration side of CCGS, and we thank EPA for its efforts. Our groups have now submitted several sets of individual and joint comments containing technical recommendations to improve the rule and ensure that geologic sequestration is performed safely and effectively. However, the UIC rulemaking leaves significant gaps that the Agency must address in an expeditious manner.

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

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Bill Hertz Letter ID: 0500 Commenter Organization: Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 21208

Comment: So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed rules but would request additional regulatory clarity and/or guidance for potential upstream industrial

clients.

Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI supports: we support the establishment of a new class of well, Class VI, for geologic sequestration and maintaining injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery under the Class II program.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Bill Hertz Letter ID: 0500 Commenter Organization: Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 21213

Comment: To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Board on Integrated Nitrogen has estimated that fertilizer is responsible for almost 50 percent of the world food production. There is over a billion people that are living essentially on a dollar a day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact food security.

Response: EPA clarifies that the impact of GS on food security is outside the scope of the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504 Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21251

Comment: So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused on us right here today, what we do here is critically important. Geologic sequestration is essential, it is urgently needed, but it must be done right. Thank you.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0510 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21224

Comment: So a lot of careful thought has gone in this ruling and we recognize that.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21417

Comment: We think that an adequate regulatory regime for CO2 sequestration is within sight. That is not to say that we do not think that changes are needed. We do see the need for quite a few changes in the rule, but I think it is fair to characterize the changes we have in mind as technical.Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21420 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to delineate the AoR (seeking comment); 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring

Comment: We think the rule, the proposed rule has done a very good job of keeping the focus on both CO2 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from displaced brine. The confining zone in the rule is required to contain both CO2 and displaced formation fluids. The zone of elevated pressure as defined in the rule focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids that might be driven out of a US -- into a USDW. The modeling requirements are modeling both of the CO2 plume extent and formation fluid movement. There is the requirement for periodic monitoring of groundwater quality and geochemical changes above the confining zone which would help detail whether either CO2 or brine is leaking and there are adequate response provisions.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and believes that predicting the complex multiphase, buoyant flow of the CO2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be mobilized due to injection requires the sophistication of computational models, as required at §146.84(c)(1). Models can predict CO2 fate and transport, as well as changes in formation pressure, in three dimensions, as a function of time in order to delineate the subsurface storage site and the AoR. Models can account for site-specific and predicted operating conditions as well as geologic heterogeneities and potential migration through faults, fractures, and artificial penetrations.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. For additional information on well construction, siting, and testing and monitoring requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Letter ID: 0525 Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comment ID: 21396 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: A few specific comments on issues where we agree with EPA's proposed rule. We believe that permit applications for GS sites should include several plans, not currently required under existing UIC regulations. These plans include a monitoring, a testing plan and an area of review and corrective action plan and a post injection site care and site closure plan.Response: EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation,mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

For additional information on testing and monitoring, corrective action, and post-injection site care requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

EPA agrees that incorporating the plans into the permit rather than establishing specific requirements for corrective action, monitoring, injection well plugging, and post-injection site care in the regulation provide the appropriate flexibility to address the variety of site-specific conditions that may be encountered at GS sites.

EPA also believes that it is appropriate to require owners and operators to submit all plans, including the injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure plans, at the time of permit application. EPA believes that the Director needs a satisfactory level of assurance that the owner or operator has planned for these events before injection commences and that the owner or operator has ensured that appropriate financial resources are available to fund all required activities, as required at §146.85. The final rule retains requirements for submitting these plans with the permit application at §146.82(a). EPA believes that the requirement for this and other plans associated with GS projects will promote an ongoing dialogue between the owner or operator and the Director to ensure USDWs are protected from endangerment. In addition, these plans will support a demonstration that owners and operators have adequate financial resources to meet well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure requirements. Please see the final rule and the discussion of the GS project plans in the preamble for additional information.

Commenter Name: Barbara Massoner Letter ID: 0531 Commenter Organization: Legacy Economy Comment ID: 21442

Comment: In the past week with the economic crisis, it has illustrated it is essential to develop sensible regulations before a crisis hits. Toning down regulations based on threats from industry that the government oversight is going to have an impact on our economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it is the other way around. Therefore, I commend the EPA for addressing carbon sequestration. It is essential that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that we have a healthy environment, but so that we can usher in a prosperous economy for the next generation.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0534 Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Comment ID: 21453

Comment: I believe the time is right to be writing a sound regulatory framework on CCS. We need to be getting on with reducing emissions from qualified power plants and

other industrial facilities as soon as we can and I would like to thank and commend EPA for putting together what is I think a very well thought out rule in a very limited amount of time.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536 Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21380

Comment: I want to close by reiterating Excel Energy's strong support for the expeditious adoption of affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon sequestration and give our company, our industry and our nation a powerful tool in reducing CO2 emissions. And thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22515 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: 43492-43541. We agree EPA has the authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to propose regulations governing the protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water, but we believe Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Wells are: 1) dangerous and 2) unnecessary and should not promulgated. Also, we believe theResponse: EPA disagrees that properly managed GS projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21601

Comment: In order to optimize the implementation of CCS in the US, it is necessary to construct a regulatory framework that is progressive in vision, responsive to new data, representative of all stakeholders, substantive in expertise, and ethical in decision making. The second section will offer policy recommendations for effective regulatory oversight. In order to optimize public acceptance, it is necessary to anticipate and consider the types of community concerns that are being raised in conjunction with proposed sitings and operations of geologic sequestration projects (and future carbon capture and transportation projects) under EPA and DOE auspices. The third section will suggest protocols for establishing mechanisms that will address and alleviate the social and environmental concerns of local communities relating to health, safety, and

economic factors.

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148 Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21751

Comment: 1. Statutory Liability EPA is proposing its rule under the SDWA, which governs the Underground Injection Control program, and provides the statutory authority for geologic sequestration of CO2. EPA readily admits, however, that the SDWA is limited; it does not cover the capture or transfer of CO2, the transfer of liability between entities, nor accounting or certification of greenhouse gas reductions -- only CO2 injection. But it is exactly because EPA’s authorityunder the SDWA is limited that EPA needs to provide greater clarity as to what other statutory authorities may become relevant, which provisions could be triggered, and to delineate, to the extent possible, all potential liabilities associated with owning, operating, or investing in a Class VI well.

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22618

Comment: Filling in the Missing Linkages between Class VI Rule and a Larger National Climate Policy

It is clear from the draft Class VI storage rule that the USEPA was constrained to issuing the rule under the existing authorities it has via the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The federal employees who put together the current draft Class VI storage rule did an admirable job of staying within the confines of the authorities granted by the SDWA and in doing so produced a draft rule for CO2 storage that helps to answer many key questions about how CO2 storage will be regulated within the United States.

However, there are still many, many critical issues that need to be addressed that go beyond the statutory authority granted by the SDWA. If EPA does not begin to address these issues, the resulting lack of clarity is potentially as large of a stumbling block for the commercial deployment of CCS technologies as would be the case if there was not this well thought out draft of the Class VI

rule.

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22275

Comment: [FN6: 6 42 U.S.C. §300h, et seq. Geologic sequestration of CO2 clearly meets the definition of underground injection found at 42 U.S.C. §300h(d)(1), "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection." Carbon dioxide, whether injected in a supercritical state, or as a gas, meets the definition of a fluid included in the existing regulations under the SDWA: those rules state that a "fluid" is "any material or substance which flows or moves whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state." 40 CFR § 144.3.]

Response: EPA agrees that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Injection wells are regulated under SDWA’s UIC Program. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22277

Comment: B. The Safe Drinking Water Act Authorizes EPA to Create a Preventive, Forward Looking, and Adaptive Program Specific to CO2 GS Permitting

Under the SDWA, EPA’s authority to protect USDWs is clearly defined, broadly scoped, and forward looking. [FN7] Section 1421 requires the Administrator to publish rules for state implemented underground injection programs that "prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources" as that phrase is further defined by the statute. [FN8] Such programs, at a minimum, must "prohibit any underground injection ... which is not authorized by a permit," [FN9] and such permit programs must require a showing to the satisfaction of the state that the underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. ..." [FN10] Underground injection "endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if thepresence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. [FN11] And "contaminant" is defined as "any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water." [FN12] Underground injection furthermore is prohibited without a permit, and to receive a permit the applicant must demonstrate that endangerment "will not" occur. [FN13] This preventive, broadly scoped language demonstrates that Congress intended that all underground injection be regulated under the UIC program. [FN14]

[FN7: While our Environmental NGO Group agrees that EPA’s primary authority for the promulgation of this rule is found in the Safe Drinking Water Act, we also point out above that the Clean Air Act authorizes controls on CO2 emissions that necessarily implicate and necessitate this UIC approach, and so also can be said to provide authority for Class VI rules. EPA must exercise its Clean Air Act authority to regulate CO2 for the purposes of preventing its release to the atmosphere. Additionally, and more generally, EPA could also promulgate verification and accounting protocols for CO2 GS, as needed, under those Clean Air Act rules. Such Clean Air Act rules may or may not prove adequate for purposes of any future legislatively created trading system. Clearly, however, the UIC rules should not be regarded as sufficient to authorize or certify carbon credits as part of such a system, as they do not provide sufficient proof that CO2 will be permanently sequestered from the atmosphere, nor do they include additional details necessary for verifying and quantifying any atmospheric releases.] [FN8: 42 U.S.C. §§ 300h(a)(1),(b)(1).] [FN9: Id. § 300h(b)(1)(A).] [FN10: Id. § 300h(b)(1)(B).] [FN11: Id. § 300h(d)(2).] [FN12: 42 U.S.C. § 300f(6).] [FN13: 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(1)(A), (B).] [FN14: See also NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1258, 1271 (1st Cir. 1987), holding that Congress intended the phrase "underground injection which endangers drinking water sources" should have the broadest applicability, and citing and quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1185, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 6484.]

Response: EPA agrees that the SDWA provides the EPA with the authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS. (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Injection wells are regulated under SDWA’s UIC Program. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of otherFederal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues. However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, consistent with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26139

Comment: First, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not address airside leakage concerns, as the Clean Air Act (CAA) does. The proposed UIC rule defines and regulates geologic sequestration solely for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). This is largely due to the previous Administration’s policy of not engaging in issues that relate to atmospheric CO2 emissions. However, basing a geologic sequestration rule solely on SDWA authority is incomplete. The primary, if not the only, objective of CCGS is to reduce emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the need for an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure secure sequestration is evident. If CCGS is to gain further acceptability, regulatory measures aimed at preventing atmospheric emissions are also needed in addition to safeguards for USDWs, even though a rigorous approach to the latter should serve to reduce the risk of CO2 leakage to the atmosphere.

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

FN 3. The Supreme Court has held that CO2 is an “air pollutant” within EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). EPA is currently in the process of considering comments on a proposed rulemaking related to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting (74 Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April 10, 2009), comment period closed June 9, 2009), as well as a proposed endangerment finding prerequisite to setting certain regulatory standards (74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (April 24, 2009), comment period closed June 23, 2009).Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. Please note all comments related to EPA’s authority outside the SDWA are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

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

within the United States.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Comment Code: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148 Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21776

Comment: 5. OMB’s Good Guidance Practices

With respect to EPA’s suggestion that future guidance documents be issued to clarify requirements for financial responsibility on CO2 injection projects, the Chamber reiterates that such guidance must be issued in conformance with OMB’s

Good Guidance Practices bulletin.

Response: EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility for GS wells. The guidance isavailable on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as financial responsibility guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23395 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: EPA asked for comments on financial guidance on any aspect of the final rule (for example, clarification of requirements for financial assurance mechanisms). APPA thinks that this might be an area where the EPA might call for a "second bite at the apple" after we know more from the preliminary carbon sequestration projects and "scaling up" projects. We agree with Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and others who have suggested that that guidance must be developed in accordance with OMB’s Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, which directs that notice and comment be provided for the development of "significant" and "economically significant" guidance documents.

Response: The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as financial responsibility guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23816

Comment: C. GUIDANCE FOR EPA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND STATE

OFFICIALSBroad responsibility and decision making authority is centered in the EPA Regional Administrators (for UIC programs administered by EPA) and in non-EPA officials (responsible for permitting, implementation and compliance of state, territorial or tribal UIC programs). However, no guidance is provided as to how these individuals are to exercise such wide discretion. They will have the authority to determine whether large pilot projects should be considered Class V (experimental) or Class VI wells, but on what basis such a decision is to be made is not clear. In accordance with OMB's Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices,[FN8] EPA should consider developing additional guidelines that limit the ability of mid-level officials to implement and alter the program without review by the EPA Administrator or other organs of the U.S. Government.

[FN8] Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007).

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: John Corra Letter ID: 0205 Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

22192 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment)

Comment: 4. Training: The U.S. EPA should establish, on a regional level, training programs that assist in building state's capacity in the science and technology necessary to effectively regulate CO2 sequestration.

Response: EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for states and tribes that describes the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone Letter ID: 0212 Commenter Organization: Tampa Electric Company Comment ID: 22899

Comment: and avoids unnecessary prohibitions. In addition, guidance on any aspect of the Final Rule (for example, clarification of requirements for financial assurance mechanisms) must be developed in accordance with OMB's Good Guidance PracticesBulletin, which directs that notice and comment be provided on "economically significant" guidance documents.(Foot note 1) See 72 Fed. Reg. 3432, 3438 (Jan. 25, 2007).

(1)The Bulletin defines "economically significant guidance document" as "a significant guidance document that 'may reasonably be anticipated to lead to' art annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy or a sector a the economy." See 72 Fed. Reg. at

3435.

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is developing guidance for states and tribes that describes the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: Barbara Walz Letter ID: 0216 Commenter Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc. Comment ID:

22966

Comment: maintaining a rule that is flexible and avoids unnecessary prohibitions. In addition, guidance on any aspect of the final rule (far example, clarification of requirements for financial assurance mechanisms) must be developed in accordance with Office of Management and Budget's Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, which directs that notice and comment be provided on "economically significant" guidance documents. EPA should not issue guidance that is effectively implemented as regulations.

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: Saba Tahmassebi Letter ID: 0218 Commenter Organization: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

21563 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: 2. Reconsider shifting the burden to the States when not enough information isavailable. It appears that much research is needed to ensure that geologic sequestration can be conducted in a safe manner. When research data is not available, or when EPA is uncertain of the best way to address a situation, the burden of addressing the issue is shifted to the states. Examples include corrective action methodology for abandoned wells, materials used in construction of the wells, and the use of tracers among other issues. Oklahoma DEQ recommends that EPA prepare guidance documents to address the above

concerns.

Response: EPA clarifies that such decisions would be made by the state, if the well is located in a state with Class VI primacy. Any state that wishes to obtain primacy for Class VI wells will need to describe in their program description the criteria that would be used to make determinations on topics the commenter mentions. See §145.23. EPA adds that it is developing guidance for states and tribes that describes the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements.

These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Ben Yamagata Letter ID: 0227 Commenter Organization: Coal Utilization Research Council Comment ID: 21794 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: D. Interim Program Recommendations

CURC proposes that EPA consider issuing guidance to create an interim program that would provide a regulatory framework for CCS projects prior to the promulgation of a final rule. Our concern rests with the possibility that the final rules may not be issued for some time in the future. For example, a section in the preamble to the NOPR states:

During the Deployment Phase (1008-1017), the [RCSP] partnerships will conduct large volume carbon storage tests to demonstrate that large-scale CO2 injection and storage can be achieved safely and economically. EPA will use the data collected from these projects to support decisions in the

final GS rule.

This statement suggests that a final GS rule may not be issued until 2017 or that rules issued earlier than that date could be modified and changed later. While we ascribe to a belief that any final rule should be informed by the findings and data collected through RCSP partnerships, we are concerned that regulatory uncertainty will delay CCS project development; hence the need for an interim program.

Projects issued permits under this guidance would collect data and technological experience that could contribute information necessary to establish a viable working framework for a long term permitting and liability regime for geologic CO2 storage activities. The program might be limited to a maximum number of projects, or cumulative amount of CO2 injection, and it should be designed to be compatible with anticipated financial incentives for "early adopters" of CCStechnology. Projects permitted under this interim guidance should be grandfathered from the final UIC rule.

Specific limiting provisions could be required in order to ease any concerns regarding the endangerment of USDW under such an interim program. Since proper site characterization is the most effective risk management tool for GS wells, EPA could require applicants under this program to use geologically superior sites, or provide alternative requirements for sites with significantly superior characteristics. The World Resource Institute (WRI) CCS Guidelines [FN5] and IOGCC model rules include provisions for selecting storage sites that have a high probability of retaining injected CO2. [FN6] An interim program would recognize the same goals sought by EPA when it issued its guidance for DOE Regional Partnership pilot projects designed to evaluate the technical issues associated with CO2 injection as Class V experimental technology wells. [FN7]

[FN5: World Resource Institute, "CCS Guidelines: Guidelines for Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage" (2008). The WRI Guidelines also offer a comprehensive regulatory approach to CCS that goes beyond the regulation of GS wells. However, in the guideline’s discussion of site closure, the WRI acknowledges a need for proper incentives so as not to impede the deployment of CCS technology as private companies may be reluctant to engage in storage operations if required to carry a financial commitment and liability out into the indefinite future. Id. at 104.] [FN6: The IOGCC model rules premise approval of a GS storage site on four findings: (1) the facility and reservoir are suitable and feasible for injection and storage; (2) that a good faith effort has been made to obtain the consent of a majority of the owners having property interests affected by the storage facility, and that the operator intends to acquire any remaining interest by eminent domain or otherwise allowed by statute; (3) that the use of the storage facility will not contaminate other formations containing fresh water, oil, gas, coal or other mineral deposits; and (4) that the proposed storage will not unduly endanger human health and the environment and is in the public interest. See IOGCC Model Rules, supra note 5 at Appendix I.] [FN7: Envtl. Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, UIC Program Guidance #83, Using Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects (2007).]

Response: EPA disagrees that an interim program is necessary. EPA believes that sufficient data have been collected to inform the final GS rule. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and analyzing GS project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory. EPA believes that these projects form a solid basis for finalizing the GS requirements, and there is no reason to wait until all phases of the DOEdemonstration tests are complete. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates that future experimental and fullscale projects will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking approach. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. EPAbelieves that the completion of the DOE pilots in 2017 will allow the incorporation of results of these projects into the first review of the rule.

EPA clarifies that this rule does not allow grandfathering. However, under §146.81 owners or operators seeking to convert existing Class I, Class II, or Class V experimental wells to Class VI geologic sequestration wells must demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

Commenter Name: Ben Yamagata Letter ID: 0227 Commenter Organization: Coal Utilization Research Council Comment ID: 21801 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: proposed. Lastly, CURC recommends that EPA issue guidance for an interim Class VI program for CCS projects that predate the final UIC rule.

Response: In advance of the GS rulemaking, EPA developed UIC Program Guidance # 83: Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Carbon GS Projects (USEPA, 2007), which provides recommendations for permit writers regarding the use of the UIC Class V experimental technology well classification at demonstration GS projects while ensuring USDW protection.

EPA disagrees that an interim program is necessary. EPA believes that sufficient data have been collected to inform the final GS rule. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and analyzing GS project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory. EPA believes that these projects form a solid basis for finalizing the GS requirements, and there is no reason to wait until all phases of the DOE demonstration tests are complete. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates that future experimental and full-scale projects will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking approach. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. EPA believes that the completion of the DOE pilots in 2017 will allow the incorporation of results of these projects into the first review

of the rule.

EPA clarifies that this rule does not allow grandfathering. However, under §146.81 owners or operators seeking to convert existing Class I, Class II, or Class V experimental wells to Class VI geologic sequestration wells must demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

EPA clarifies that following finalization of the GS rule, all GS projects that are not for experimental purposes must be re-permitted as Class VI wells and be subject to the final GS rule requirements.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21386Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90)

Comment: EPA should provide guidance on acceptable monitoring techniques and frequency, provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another

Response: EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Comment Code: 1450 1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22526 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 146.86)

Comment: e.g., without EPA specifications, except longevity of materials, e.g., corrosion resistance requirements, etc., EPA PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY ON AN INDUSTRY WHICH GOVERNMENT, THE PUBLIC AND REGULATORS HAVE NEVER TRUSTED, BRYANT (2007).

THE PROPOSED RULE MUST BE WITHDRAWN!

Bryant, S., 2007. Geologic CO2 Storage - Can the Oil and Gas Industry Help Save the Planet? J Pet. Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September

Response: EPA disagrees that the final GS rulemaking provides industry with the responsibility to enforce GS requirements. EPA clarifies that responsibility for enforcing the GS rule rests with state and/or regional permitting authorities, not industry, and that states seeking to implement the GS rule must demonstrate in their primacy program submission that they will implement a program that is at least as stringent as the federal requirements for permitting, site characterization, monitoring, and site closure, as well as for all other GS rule requirements as required under §1422 of SDWA.

The prescribed construction requirements described in the final GS rule for Class VI wells are sufficient to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA adds that the requirement at §146.86(b)(1) that materials must meet or exceed standards developed by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or comparable standards acceptable to the Director invokes the expertise of these bodies which, combined with the review by the Director of all site-specific information required to be submitted at §146.82(a) will ensure that the owner or operator constructs a well that will ensure USDWs are protected from endangerment. EPA believes that permitting authorities, which have many staff who have been overseeing UIC programs for decades, have sufficient expertise to evaluate the appropriateness of cements for use in specific situations.EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for

additional information.

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0127 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 23059

Comment: Based on my reading, the proposed EPA rule is not ready for promulgation. The proposal should be withdrawn.

Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. EPA adds that the final GS rule includes a variety of changes from the proposed rule that enhance and clarify the requirements and address public comments on the proposed rule.

Commenter Name: Adam P. Haynes Letter ID: 0184 Commenter Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) Comment ID:

22784

Comment: TIPRO is concerned about the overall structure of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) regulation within the EPA. While TIPRO applauds the initial effort of this rule making, especially the effort not to categorize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a waste product, we urge caution on proceeding to a final rule. TIPRO believes a comprehensive effort by the EPA is warranted, including input by all offices with oversight for the control of CO2. However, this action should not be undertaken until Congress has passed specific legislation that addresses the control and capture of CO2, To proceed otherwise will likely lead to a patchwork of regulations and laws that will ultimately lead to confusion in the regulated community and in the different offices of the EPA. The capture and storage of CO2 will be a complicated effort, at best, and a regulatory nightmare at worst. The regulated industry must have comprehensive regulations governing CCS, not a patchwork of individual regulations from separate offices within the EPA.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the UIC program for the capture and storage of CO2 , TIPRO does not support proceeding to a final rulemaking with this effort. Rather, TIPRO urges the EPA to begin a holistic review of CO2 regulations once Congressional action on CO2 is final. Until then, action by separate offices within the EPA will lead to confusion and a patchwork of regulations that are confusing to the regulated community.

Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to address climate change. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA is aware that broader climate change legislation is underconsideration by Congress. The Agency is monitoring the progress of this legislation, and if any Congressional action were to require EPA to regulate GS in the broader context, the Agency would address this requirement accordingly, including working with the appropriate stakeholders and federal agencies.

EPA believes that there is a potential that GS may be deployed at a fast pace (e.g., if climate change legislation provides an incentive for sequestering CO2 or if other climate policies or regulations limit CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prepare for such an event. EPA's adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available and enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230 Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American Energy Security Initiative Comment ID:

21870

Comment: Unnecessary government policies and regulations, like the subject EPA rule, can continue to deny the United States the energy security it needs to prosper.

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is Key to U.S. Energy Security and Independence

The American Energy Security Study, sponsored by the Atlanta based regional energy compact, Southern States Energy Board (www.SSEB.org and www.AmericanEnerySecurity.org ) identified CO2 EOR as a key to U.S. energy security and independence.

EPA’s proposed rule for UIC of CO2, if not changed dramatically, could undermine the potential for increased domestic production of crude oil and methane, leading to an increase in our dependence on imported oil and natural gas. The harmful economic and national security impacts of dependence on energy imports

cannot be understated.

Response: In response to comments that the GS rule could impede technology or undermine the potential for increased domestic production of crude oil and methane, EPA stresses that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protectsUSDWs from endangerment. Consequently, these comments are outside the scope of the rulemaking. EPA adds that this rulemaking is not intended to promote oil or natural gas production or to address U.S. dependence on imported oil and natural gas. EPA clarifies that wells injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER are regulated as Class II wells.

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230 Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American Energy Security Initiative Comment ID:

21872 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: GENERAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED UIC RULE

1. It is strongly recommended that the EPA promote and encourage, not block anderect barriers to, geosequestration of CO2 for both productive and nonproductive uses of CO2.

EPA’s stated goals for this proposal are to protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) while promoting carbon capture and storage. The proposed regulations would succeed in protecting USDWs, but would fails to promote carbon capture and storage. The Proposed Rule overestimates the risks of CO2 geologic sequestration and creates barriers to rapid technology development and commercial scale deployment projects that will greatly benefit American (as noted in the preceding narrative).

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of

water.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

In response to comments that the GS rule could impede technology, EPA stresses that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Comment Code: 1460 1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection



### Individual CommentsCommenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22532 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment)

Comment: EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE CO2 SEQUESTRATION RULE

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect USDWs from CO2 sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking water, not encourage indefinite storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO2 is known to attack carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (2007). The fact that Meyer reported stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by "dry" CO2 indicates wet CO2 (carbonic acid) is a RCRA corrosive waste, since it meets the RCRA definition of corrosive. In addition, the fact a leak of CO2 could enter a building basement suffocating the inhabitants, demonstrates CO2 sequestration is not an environmental problem, but, when sequestered, it is a pervasive and dangerous life threatening hazard. EPA is ill equipped to control potentially unsafe activities under the guise of protecting drinking water.

Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology" prepared for American Petroleum Institute, p 21.

Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide EPA with adequate authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the boundaries or authority of the SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. Injection wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Under the SDWA, the underground injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

EPA disagrees that properly managed GS projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

EPA considers the risk of asphyxiation and other chronic and acute health effects from airborne exposure resulting from CO2 injection activities (even in the case of leakage or accidental exposure) to be minimal. This finding is based on experience gained in the oil and gas industry, experience from international GS projects, and evaluation of large scale releases of naturally occurring CO2 (73 FR 43498).

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities

and GS Initiatives?"Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22536 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment)

Comment: Further, EPA believes they can assume the RCRA type authority for Class VI wells under the SDWA. If challenged in court, the court most likely will disagree, because the SDWA was written only for protection of USDW. Even the Agency suggests the Safe Drinking Water Act is not appropriate to regulate CO2 sequestration.

Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with adequate authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the boundaries or authority of the SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. Injection wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Under the SDWA, the underground injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities

and GS Initiatives?"

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21620

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: J. CO2 as a Valuable Commodity

Recommendation J: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous waste material by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or chemically transform CO2 into valuable products.

Localities that oppose the permitting of geologic sequestration projects usually hold the perception that CO2 is a toxic waste material being dumped and buried in their backyards. Typically, localities are distrustful of the motivations of business and government representatives who seek to allay fears of economic, health, and environmental risks attendant to pumping CO2 into injection wells. An important avenue for re-framing such perceptions is by emphasizing CCSmethods which value carbon dioxide as a naturally occurring and commercially valuable resource. The DOE's carbon sequestration program at the National Energy Technology Laboratory includes funding for research and development of advanced chemical and biological approaches, including systems for decarbonization, photosynthesis, and conversion of CO2 into useful forms. However, since no demonstration projects have been announced over the same time period that multiple geosequestration projects have been implemented, the DOE's "Novel Carbon Sequestration Concepts" program appears to be under- publicized and under-funded. This lack of vigor in promoting carbon transformation methods gives the public the impression that CCS technologies are being readied solely for the purpose of perpetuating our dependency on fossil fuels for electricity generation and manufacturing processes.

Numerous business ventures are seeking opportunities to prove the efficacy of their carbon mineralization processes with larger demonstration projects. Companies holding proprietary patents for useful CO2-sequestered materials such as calcium carbonate cement and construction materials, paper products, biodegradable plastics, and algae biofuels need government funding and support to scale-up their methods. By narrowly targeting geosequestration as the primary carbon storage solution, the federal government is missing an opportunity to secure broader public acceptance of CCS as a safe and viable method for reducing the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, and is neglecting important avenues for achieving that goal.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology (www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in researchinclude the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Skiles Boyd Letter ID: 0160 Commenter Organization: DTE Energy Comment ID: 21272

Comment: APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATION OF RISKS

DTE Energy fully supports EPA efforts to protect all drinking water sources from contamination. It would facilitate commercial deployment and public acceptance of this technology if EPA would not impose the same requirements on CO2 injection and storage as is imposed on those materials and wastes that truly do pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. Enhanced Oil

Response: EPA agrees that requirements for GS projects should be tailored to the specific risks associated with carbon dioxide injection for GS. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant and nature of the injectate, its mobility in subsurface formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Sandi Tabor Letter ID: 0162 Commenter Organization: Lignite Energy Council (LEC) Comment ID: 21295

Comment: Second, EPA must be careful to avoid labeling C02 as a waste, pollutant or contaminant. Regulations should require storage operators to properly characterize the C02 they intend to store and protocols for storage should be based on that characterization. Broad sweeping characterizations of CO2 as hazardous waste, however, should be avoided due to the potential deterrent such characterizations will have on entities attempting to develop CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees that owners or operators should characterize the injectate. Among the information owners or operators are required to submit with their permit applications (at §146.82 (a)(7)) is an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream and information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zone(s). The Director will evaluate this information when setting permit conditions. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21328 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: 7. EPA should view CCS as a resource, not a waste. NRECA endorses the view of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission ("IOGCC") that CO2 should betreated in any regulatory regime as a resource and not as a waste. As an initial matter, CO2 has a commercial value for EOR operators. A number of commercial operations exist solely for the extraction and sale of natural CO2. Moreover, anthropogenic CO2 may have a commercial value for traders in carbon emissions reduction credits, once the CO2 is captured and stored. While the reason for capturing the CO2 may be to prevent it from entering the earth’s atmosphere, it nonetheless will have a commercial value when stored. Also, states that currently regulate CO2 injections for EOR operations do so under a resource management framework. Surface Transportation Boards, which are responsible for the economic regulation of CO2 interstate pipelines, also view CO2 as a commodity. Characterization as a waste would have a chilling effect on the development of CCS projects.

Response: EPA clarifies that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself and risks associated with the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant, commodity or waste. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21329 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: 8. The General Accounting Office ("GAO") recently issued a report entitled "Climate Change -- Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option" (GAO-08-1080, September 2008) ("GAO Report"). GAO cites a National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") report emphasizing that a largescale CO2 UIC program cannot be successful "if a significant fraction of the public views it as dangerous or unacceptable" and, therefore, CO2 storage technologies must not only be safe and effective, they must be presented "to the public and the regulatory community in such a way as to instill confidence that they are in fact safe and effective." Id. at 49 (citing NAS, Prospective Evaluation). This is another reason EPA should not

characterize CO2 as a waste. *********

Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity or a waste.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner thatprotects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23564

Comment: i. Appropriate characterization of CO2. It is critical that any regulation under the UIC program does not unnecessarily characterize CO2 as a waste, pollutant or contaminant or otherwise unduly stigmatize the injection and geologic storage of CO2. While it is appropriate to consider the actual characteristics of CO2 and tailor regulations accordingly, unwarranted characterization of CO2 as a hazardous waste, for example, should be avoided.

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Commenter Name: Lee O. Fuller Letter ID: 0179 Commenter Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America et

al. Comment ID:

23610

Comment: These comments address three primary - and interrelated - concerns regarding the proposed federal regulatory scheme for CO2 GS wells. Our primary interest in this proposal to create a Class VI well category is its interaction with the use of CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) under the Class II category. CO2 EOR offers both an existing technology and one with rapidly expanding application. In this context, the utilization of CO2 during EOR also provides for geologic sequestration. The decisions attendant to the Class VI proposal regarding the characterization of CO2 as a commercial chemical, a pollutant or a hazardous waste and regarding the federal regulatory structure and impacts on state primacy are interrelated and of significant concern.Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a). EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Please see EPA's response below for additional information on the final approach to transitioning permits from Class II to Class VI.

Commenter Name: Lee O. Fuller Letter ID: 0179 Commenter Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America et

al. Comment ID:

23612 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: Second, these concerns similarly arise regarding the characterization of CO2 in the GS process. Currently, for EOR operations, CO2 is essentially treated as a commercial chemical. This characterization is significant because of the connotation that characterization as a pollutant or a hazardous waste implies. CO2 has not been declared either a pollutant or a hazardous substance under any federal law. Suggesting that it should be so classified (or even a treatment in policy that would indirectly point to it as such) as a part of this rulemaking implies a risk that is not consistent with its use in EOR. Indeed, implicit in such an implication is a liability threat that would chill further development of CO2 EOR with no incremental environmental benefit. However, we do recognize that compositional controls over what is injected may be necessary. This does

not seem to be addressed in the draft rules.

Response: Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

EPA adds that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself and risks imposed by the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant,commodity, or waste.

Commenter Name: Adam P. Haynes Letter ID: 0184 Commenter Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) Comment ID:

22785

Comment: Regarding this rulemaking effort, TIPRO suggests the following comments for consideration. First, CO2 is a valuable commodity that has been used by the exploration and production sector for more than 30 years. It is not a waste product. While we applaud the initial efforts not to label CO2 as a waste, tracking the regulatory requirements for Class I wells so closely while considering the development of the new Class VI wells is concerning. Without further clarification, CO2 regulations could develop more in line with waste classifications associated with RCRA and CERCLA. That would signal a failure of sound CCS practices that have developed with proper regulatory oversight at the state level for the last 30 years.

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Commenter Name: Barbara Walz Letter ID: 0216 Commenter Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc. Comment ID:

22968 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: C. EPA should view CO2 as a resource, not a waste. CO2 has a commercial value for enhanced oil recovery operators. A number of commercial operations exist solely for the extraction and sale of natural CO2. Moreover, anthropogenic CO2 may have a commercial value for traders in carbon emissions reduction credits, once the CO2 is captured and stored. While the reason for capturing the CO2 may be to prevent it from entering the earth's atmosphere, it nonetheless will have a commercial value when stored. Also, states that currently regulate CO2 injections for enhanced oil recovery operations do so under a resource managementframework. Surface Transportation Boards, which are responsible for the economic regulation of CO2 interstate pipelines, also view CO2 as a commodity. Characterization as a waste would have a chilling effect on the development of carbon capture and storage projects.

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant, waste, or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0217 Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 21551 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: CO2 Characterization

CO2 is produced continually by natural process throughout the natural world and poses no significant hazard to human health when properly managed. EPA is correct to note in the proposed rule that a potential barrier to CCS and geologic storage involves how the captured CO2 is treated within existing regulatory frameworks. EPA is incorrect, however, to suggest or presume that captured CO2 is a waste, or that geologic storage via a Class VI well constitutes disposal. In several instances, the proposed rule refers to CO2 as a potential hazardous waste and suggests the need for regulatory requirements for Class VI wells that exceed those deemed necessary for Class I hazardous waste injection wells. Creating such a regulatory framework that implies an undue level of risk associated with geologic storage is misleading and could stigmatize proposed projects in the eyes of both the public and investors.

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program."Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection or implies an undue level of risk. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

EPA does not agree that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS. The Agency believes that a demonstration to the public that GS projects are meeting the GS rule's tailored requirements will likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions

and concerns.

Regarding the ability of owners or operators to secure investment in GS projects, EPA believes that financing entities will have improved confidence in projects that incorporate multiple protective requirements.

Commenter Name: Edward Steadman Letter ID: 0220 Commenter Organization: The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota Comment ID:

21574 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: It is important to be mindful that CO2, relative to other common and not-socommon injectates, is relatively innocuous. Increasing concentrations are easily detected in groundwater through simple monitoring of pH. Carbon dioxide in groundwater poses minimal acute or chronic threat to human health or the environment, especially when compared to other materials that have been classified as hazardous. As long as potential injection sites are appropriately characterized and judiciously selected and injection operations are designed and conducted according to longstanding engineering and regulatory standards, the leakage of CO2 into underground sources of drinking water (USDW) is likely to be a preventable and infrequent occurrence. In the rare event that CO2 should leak into USDWs, it is also important to note that its primary effect on groundwater will be to form a weak acid (carbonic acid) and lower pH, which can be relatively easily mitigated by a variety of commonly used, simple remediation practices.Response: In response to the comment that CO2 is relatively innocuous and that the primary effect of a leak to groundwater will be to form a weak acid and lower pH, EPA clarifies that the mission of the UIC Program is to protect USDWs from injection activity that may endanger USDWs. Reduction in pH may also lead to mobilization of contaminants (e.g., arsenic, lead, and organic compounds), which can degrade water quality. In addition, the migration of formation fluids containing mobilized contaminants could cause endangerment of USDWs (Birkholzer et al., 2008a).

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

EPA adds that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself and risks associated with the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant, commodity, or waste.

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230 Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American Energy Security Initiative Comment ID:

21882

Comment: 5. The Proposed Rule incorrectly implies that CO2 is a waste.

The EPA states that it has not classified CO2 as a waste or a commodity. However, by using the waste injection well requirements (Class I) as the framework for the new Class VI requirements, the Proposed Rule implies that the CO2 is a waste. The Proposed Rule has proposed requirements for Class VI injection wells that are more severe than those for wells used for the injection

of hazardous waste.

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS or imply that CO2 is a waste. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the injection volumes anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its corrosivity in the presence of water, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

In addition, although the requirements were based on the existing regulatory framework for deep wells, including Class I wells, the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant orcommodity. EPA based many of the GS requirements on the Class I regulations because, like Class VI wells, Class I wells are typically deep and involve waste streams that, if not properly managed,

can harm the well and lead to contamination.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249 Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22260 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2

Comment: 2. Appropriately Characterize CO2 - We strongly urge EPA to be very careful in its characterization of CO2 under the UIC program. As has been previously noted, a successful climate change control program will necessarily be predicated on development of -- and public support for -- CCS. EPA could inadvertently, and inappropriately, stigmatize CCS, if it veers into an unwarranted categorization of CO2 as a pollutant or a hazardous waste. Such suggestions would imply a liability risk that would chill further development of both CCS and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations.

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS or imply that CO2 is a waste. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the injection volumes anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its corrosivity in the presence of water, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

In addition, although the requirements were based on the existing regulatory framework for deep wells, including Class I wells, the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. While the Class I requirements formed the basis of many of the specific requirements for GS wells, EPA clarifies that the GS rule is tailored to the unique nature of GS. EPA based many of the GS requirements on the Class I regulations because, like Class VI wells, Class I wells are typically deep and involve waste streams that, if not properly managed, can harm the well and lead

to contamination.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

EPA adds that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself and risks associated with the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant, commodity, or waste.Commenter Name: Mike Nasi Letter ID: 0254 Commenter Organization: Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas Comment ID: 22363

Comment: 2. Liability under RCRA and CERCLA

Despite the fact that EPA states in the preamble that it has not classified CO2 as either a waste or commodity, the framework under which the proposed rules are drafted creates an implication that the CO2 stream is a waste. Every effort must be made to avoid labeling CO2 as a waste, pollutant or contaminant, as such terms will act as deterrents to the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS or imply that CO2 is a waste. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the injection volumes anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its corrosivity in the presence of water, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

In addition, although the requirements were based on the existing regulatory framework for deep wells, including Class I wells, the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. While the Class I requirements formed the basis of many of the specific requirements for GS wells, EPA clarifies that the GS rule is tailored to the unique nature of GS. EPA based many of the GS requirements on the Class I regulations because, like Class VI wells, Class I wells are typically deep and involve waste streams that, if not properly managed, can harm the well and lead

to contamination.

EPA clarifies that under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

Commenter Name: Mark Vickery Letter ID: 0280 Commenter Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Comment ID: 24105 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: With regard to the appropriate level of regulation, EPA has described the rule development as an adaptive process occurring over a period of years with careful consideration of stakeholder and general public comment, and results of research including experimental CO2 injection projects worldwide. This process includes the possibility of future revision of the final adopted rules in response to accumulating knowledge from project operational experience, research, and increasing public confidence in capture and sequestration technology. Concern however remains that overly burdensome regulations may seriously impede the technology in a manner not easily correctable by later rule revisions, especially considering the experience from CO2 injection in Class II well enhanced recovery projects indicating no significant environmental or health risks. EPA should strive to protect drinking water sources as mandated by the SDWA while imposing reasonable and proven controls on carbon sequestration, notonerous burdens without risk-based justification or cost effectiveness. Reasonable and proven controls will encourage responsible parties to voluntarily implement carbon capture and storage technology. In short, carbon is not a hazardous material and responsible industries need incentives, rather than unreasonable stringency, to participate in the program. Otherwise, the United States may not realize the benefits of carbon geosequestration.

Response: EPA believes the final GS rule addresses the commenter’s concern that it protects drinking water sources while imposing reasonable and proven controls. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices regulated by the UIC Program (including the oil and gas industry’s decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER). The final GS rule contains new requirements for Class VI wells that are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the injection volumes anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its corrosivity in the presence of water, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA remains committed to an adaptive approach. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Comment Code: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129 Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23069 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: Greenpeace’s concerns and comments on requirements for any successful regulation

Given the serious potential risks of CCS and the consequences of improper CO2 storage there are a number of critical areas that any regulation allowing CCS must address. Since the breadth and enforceability of the SDWA is not sufficient to address all of these concerns we urge that before any CCS is permitted a comprehensive regulatory structure is put in place.

Greenpeace would urge that at the moment it is too early to propose rules for a nascent industry like CCS that is not fully understood. The ability to safely deploy carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial-scale has not been proven and will not be fully understood until pilot projects are completed and reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy shouldawait the completion of these studies in order to be able to make an informed set of regulations with full understanding of the effects and consequences. Delaying the creation of the regulatory process until it is fully understood will prevent companies from investing in processes that could have severe undesirable consequences.

When it is the appropriate time to devise a regulatory structure for the creation and oversight of the carbon storage and sequestration industry it is critical that the regulation is comprehensive and complete. Given the myriad of risks associated with CCS, our concern would be that the Safe Drinking Water Act is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory field as broad as CCS. While there are significant and dangerous connections between underground carbon storage and drinking water, there are many other significant impacts outside of the purview of that act. We cannot emphasize strongly enough the absolute need that any regulation of CCS be comprehensive and inclusive of all areas of the capture, storage, and monitoring. It is simply not possible for such a complex and potentially dangerous process to be adequately regulated with piecemeal regulations.

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for GS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. EPA is monitoring international GS efforts currently operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland). These projects are designed to operate for decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, theOffice of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129 Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23076 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed; 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: that are consistent with what Greenpeace believes must be done, however a more comprehensive regulatory structure is what is truly needed before any carbon capture and sequestration project can be allowed to start.

Response: As described above, EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

Further, as described above, the Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Daniel Plath Letter ID: 0188 Commenter Organization: NiSource, Inc. Comment ID: 25225

Comment: We believe numerous program areas need to be developed to address the multitude of issues that are certain arise to make GS a commercially viable option for the CO2 capture and storage. In all likelihood, other regulatory authorities will be responsible for components of the GS regulatory framework. Close coordination between all parties will be needed to assure a consistent set of standards for

effective GS.

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of otherFederal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Pamela A. Lacey Letter ID: 0228 Commenter Organization: American Gas Association Comment ID: 21806 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: As noted in our joint comments with USWAG, many complex technical and legal issues will have to be resolved before geologic sequestration of CO2 can become a reality, and this will require a cooperative effort among several federal agencies, including EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The General Accounting Office ("GAO") recently issued a report entitled "Climate Change - Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option" (GAO-08-1080, September 2008) ("GAO Report"), which emphasizes that significant technological barriers involving CO2 capture technologies, as well as regulatory and legal uncertainties involving CO2 storage, leakage, and ownership issues, must be resolved before a successful CO2 CCS program of the scale envisioned by policymakers can be achieved. GAO Report at 3-5. A National Academy of Sciences

Response: Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21906 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1650 1.3.5 Human health impacts; 1660 1.3.6 Ecosystem impacts (soil, air, surface water)

Comment: 15. Potential Health or Environmental Impacts other than to Groundwater: While we believe that the risk of health or environmental impacts other than togroundwater is very slight for sites that are well-characterized and welloperated, we understand that this is a topic of concern to the public. The inability of the proposed UIC Class VI rules to address these concerns carries the potential to undermine public acceptance of CCS. Should such impacts occur under the proposed UIC Class VI rules, some other regulator would need tointervene. It would be preferable, and more efficient, to have site permitting conducted by a program with the authority to manage all potential risks from CO2 injection comprehensively.

Response: EPA agrees that properly managed GS projects present lower risk. EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

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

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

To the comment that the geologic siting requirements could create a negative public perception, EPA believes that a demonstration to the public, through the promulgation of the GS rule, that extensive data have been collected and evaluated will likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and concerns.

Regarding the suggestion to develop an integrated permitting process that addresses the entire CCS process, EPA clarifies that the UIC Program's authority is limited to ensuring that GS projects protect USDWs from endangerment. Oversight of the capture and transport of CO2 is outside of SDWA authority. EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS- and CCS-related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23317

Comment: important question of liability, and requires a few definition tweaks. Finally, CCS is not exclusively a groundwater issue, and regulating CCS with the proposed rule under SDWA is insufficient to address other risks. CCS should be regulated through a comprehensive statutory regime.

I. A Comprehensive Statutory and Regulatory Scheme for CCS is Required.

It is critical that a CCS regulatory structure be comprehensive. Given the myriad of risks associated with CCS, Sierra Club believes that the Safe Drinking Water Act is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory field as broad as CCS. Specifically, the Safe Drinking Water Act only protects "underground sources of drinking of water" and any CCS program raises many potential issues other than groundwater impacts. EPA acknowledges in the rule:

[t]he SDWA does not provide authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS. These areas include, but are not limited to, capture and transport of CO2; determining property rights (i.e., to permit its use for GS and for possible storage credits); transfer of liability from one entity to another; and accounting or certification for greenhouse gas ("GHG") reductions.

73 Fed. Reg. 43,492, 43,495 (July 25, 2008).

Sierra Club cannot emphasize strongly enough the absolute need that the government regulates CCS in a comprehensive and inclusive manner that accounts for all potential environmental and health impacts, and the universe of issues involved with large-scale CCS implementation such as capture, transportation and pipeline standards, interstate boundary issues, and liability. Moreover, it is simply not possible for the government to adequately regulate such a complex process through piecemeal regulations. A comprehensive regime, as opposed to a patchwork of regulations under different statutes, would be more adaptive to emergent information on this budding program as it becomes available.

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere, and therefore comments related to such efforts are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate toOther Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Michael H. Cochran Letter ID:

0108 Commenter Organization: Bureau of Water, Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Comment

ID: 21943

Comment: 3. There is much that needs to be understood about the behavior of CO2 sequestered in geologic formations. Additional research is needed to evaluate and determine this impact. This includes obtaining a much better understanding of the geochemistry involved, plume movement, plume tracking methods and plume

fate.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: John Stormon Letter ID: 0123 Commenter Organization: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Comment ID: 22997

Comment: Pilot Studies: Consider specifically including a streamlined process to encourage Pilot Studies at potential geologic sequestration projects. Thoroughsite characterization is the most important requirement for most geologic sequestration projects. Site characterization will be extremely expensive. EPA should consider some method to encourage potential projects to start with pilot studies, designed to collect detailed site characterization information and test analytical models prior to full scale project construction. In Washington we have included a special consideration for pilot studies in our geologic sequestration rule [WAC 173-218-115(4)(b)]. Of course this is also a potential loop-hole, so it is also important that pilot study permits have limits intended to prevent them from being used as a by-pass of the permitting process for full scale sequestration projects.

Response: EPA clarifies that, with the promulgation of the GS rule, it no longer considers it appropriate to permit CO2 injection wells that are testing the injectivity or appropriateness of an individual formation (e.g., as a prelude to a commercial-scale operation) as Class V experimental technology wells. Such wells should be permitted as Class VI wells. EPA clarifies that Class V experimental technology wells may be used for experimental projects designed to test new technologies.

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental technology well classification to clarify permitting for Class V wells. This addendum will address shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V experimental technology well subclass for research and testing of new GS technologies. For additional information, please see the section entitled, “How Does This Rule Affect Existing Injection Wells Under the UIC Program?” in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129 Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23069 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate

GS

Comment: Greenpeace’s concerns and comments on requirements for any successful regulation

Given the serious potential risks of CCS and the consequences of improper CO2 storage there are a number of critical areas that any regulation allowing CCS must address. Since the breadth and enforceability of the SDWA is not sufficient to address all of these concerns we urge that before any CCS is permitted a comprehensive regulatory structure is put in place.

Greenpeace would urge that at the moment it is too early to propose rules for a nascent industry like CCS that is not fully understood. The ability to safely deploy carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial-scale has not been proven and will not be fully understood until pilot projects are completed and reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy should await the completion of these studies in order to be able to make an informed set of regulations with full understanding of the effects and consequences. Delaying the creation of the regulatory process until it is fully understood will prevent companies from investing in processes that could have severe undesirable consequences.

When it is the appropriate time to devise a regulatory structure for thecreation and oversight of the carbon storage and sequestration industry it is critical that the regulation is comprehensive and complete. Given the myriad of risks associated with CCS, our concern would be that the Safe Drinking Water Act is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory field as broad as CCS. While there are significant and dangerous connections between underground carbon storage and drinking water, there are many other significant impacts outside of the purview of that act. We cannot emphasize strongly enough the absolute need that any regulation of CCS be comprehensive and inclusive of all areas of the capture, storage, and monitoring. It is simply not possible for such a complex and potentially dangerous process to be adequately regulated with piecemeal regulations.

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for GS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. EPA is monitoring international GS efforts currently operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland). These projects are designed to operate for decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS andCCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129 Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23076 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed; 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS

Comment: that are consistent with what Greenpeace believes must be done, however a more comprehensive regulatory structure is what is truly needed before any carbon capture and sequestration project can be allowed to start.

Response: As described above, EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

Further, as described above, the Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21621

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: Conclusion

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and other federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS methods, and to expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface movement of CO2 to include the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. Additionally, the Sierra Club urges the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to substantially increase their commitment to the funding of research and development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as innovative biological and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby increasing public acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere during this period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. Please also see the preamble section entitled, “What Steps Did EPA Take to Develop This Rulemaking?”

EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department 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 applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology (www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Ellen Gilinsky Letter ID: 0157 Commenter Organization: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

21264 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1854 1.4.2.2 Other Pilot Projects

Comment: carbon dioxide. The pilot projects will provide additional information to strengthen the technical criteria associated with the long-term storage of carbon dioxide. DEQ encourages the Environmental Protection Agency to postpone adoption of the Class VI regulations until all of the Phase II and Phase III pilot projects have been completed. Time taken to organize and thoroughly analyze information from these completed pilot projects should ensure final regulations that are protective of our natural resources.

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations forGS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA has evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects.

EPA acknowledges that, because all GS in the United States is currently associated with pilot projects, there are many unknowns about how GS projects will unfold and the practicalities of permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS project. Therefore, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. EPA will collect and review project data on early GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are required and being collected and determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary.

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to the development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research.

Commenter Name: James Taft Letter ID: 0172 Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Comment ID:

23450 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment: Specific Comments

Geologic Siting Requirements and Area of Review (AOR)

Additional Research and Data Needed:

More research and data are needed, than are typically available now, to make scientific determinations as well as implement proven methods to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sites, without displacement of existing USDW. Such research and data will be particularly important with regard to characterizing the thickness of the confining zone and permeability.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency is unable to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sites.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the PumpCanyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23658

Comment: Several issues need more research by EPA and DOE, and the following research needs to be completed prior to issuance of the final regulation: - Criteria for the determination that the carbon dioxide plume has stabilized; - The potential for seismic shifts due to subsurface pressure changes; - The minimum concentration of carbon dioxide in the injection stream; and - The types of tracers that would be acceptable for GS.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22185

Comment: - Although geosequestration might look feasible, especially in oil/gas formations, there is still much to be known about this technology.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA isusing an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22187 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: - It is not realistic to presume that we know enough about carbon separation or geosequestration to draw the conclusion that all new power plants with these new technologies would be carbon neutral in the first few decades of operation.

- More research is needed to answer USDW protection and technical questions related to feasibility, infrastructure and reliability. This research includes the work from the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies.

Response: The effectiveness of various climate change mitigation technologies, including carbon capture, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22214

Comment: - Theoretical and observational research must be continued and must be comprehensive. While the UIC program has a long history, the injection of CO2 into the ground is a process that is not well understood. The substance is different and the behavior of the compound under severe pressures and temperatures is not well known. We strongly recommend that EPA and DOE perform both modeling (theoretical) and observational research to better understand the carbon sequestration process and the effects of CO2 injection on saline aquifers and the subsurface geology. The results of this research must be made available to permit writers and stakeholders so that improvements to the technology and permitting process can be realized.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated,or managed.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22917

Comment: Many strategies must be used to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) -- from conservation to alternative energy sources. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) may be one tool in the toolbox, but it is not the silver bullet in that it does not reduce GHG but simply stores GHG underground. While it is important to perform the research to explore options for CCS, including the proper modeling of the subsurface dynamics and comprehensive monitoring of pilot and permitted sites, it is also important to consider the permanent nature of sequestration. Our ability to predict how subsurface dynamics may change over the life of the sequestration is currently very limited. Carbon sequestration is still largely

Response: EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology, one that is part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. Other options could include efficiency improvements and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. The purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22918 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: Therefore, AMWA recommends that the final regulation take a phased approach and prohibit the construction of CO2 sequestration wells in the following types of aquifers until more is known about the risks of CO2 sequestration to USDWs as a result of the effects and dynamics of the fluid in the subsurface:

1. Aquifers currently used for potable water supply today, or

2. Aquifers where it can be demonstrated that the aquifer will be used for potable supply in the future. AMWA is not trying to block carbon sequestration but believes that unintended consequences to the nation's water supply can be avoided by initially prohibiting the construction of CO2 wells in any aquiferfor potable supply, and by waiting to construct sequestration wells through any USDW until there is a better understanding of the effects of carbon sequestration on the dynamics of the subsurface geology and geochemistry. EPA should then revisit this exclusion once the potential risk factors and unintended consequences to USDWs are better understood.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final regulation does not allow injection of carbon dioxide into USDWs. USDWs include both currently used sources and sources that may be used in the future. Under §144.3 a USDW is defined as an aquifer or portion of an aquifer that supplies any public water system or that contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system, and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption, or that contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids and is not an exempted aquifer. The GS rule requires injection below the lowermost USDW, unless the owner or operator obtains a waiver from this requirement, in which case injection may occur into non-USDWs that lie above or between USDWs, provided the requirements at §146.95 are met. The final rule also allows for the expansion of the areal extent of existing aquifer exemptions for Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS pursuant to requirements at §§146.4 and 144.7(d). Please see the discussion of "Class VI Injection Depth Waivers and Use of Aquifer Exemptions for GS" in the preamble to the final rule for

additional information.

The Agency acknowledges the commenter’s concerns about water resources and future water resource availability. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12.

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA expects that the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule will prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22921

Comment: There are many potential issues that affect water quality that are not directly related to EPA’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), yet AMWA would like to note that many of these issues need to be addressed before carbon sequestration is fully deployed on a national scale. Specifically, AMWA believes that the Department of Energy (DOE) should develop feasibility and cost-benefit analyses with respect to additional energy and water consumed under a CCS scenario versus traditional coal power plants and other engineering solutions for GHG mitigation and reduction. Research regarding the water requirements for a CCS project and the study and consideration of future water quantity needs in the regions of potential geosequestration sites must be performed.

Response: EPA clarifies that cost-benefit analysis of CCS and other greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and the water resource requirements for CCS are outside the scope of this rulemaking.Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22924 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: Protection of drinking water sources is our primary concern. AMWA is concerned about the potential for CCS projects to result in unintended, and possibly harmful, consequences to sources of drinking water. Much of the work in the CCS arena is still in pilot or pre-pilot phase. AMWA cautions against the permitting of large scale CCS projects until protection of potable or potentially potable aquifers can be established as a primary concern, and information about DOE pilot projects and the effects of carbon sequestration on the subsurface and USDW can be collected and analyzed.

Response: As described above, EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for Class VI wells. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects.

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22933

Comment: Research must be comprehensive and must continue to increase our limited understanding of this technology. Class VI is a new unique type of well category that needs to have theoretical research (i.e., modeling) and monitoring performed, as well as other data gathered, to better understand how CO2 sequestration will affect groundwater and the subsurface geology. The research must include a combination of good theoretical work and sound observational work as we are entering uncharted territory. While CO2 has been used for gas extraction, under geosequestration, CO2 would be put in the ground permanently. As a result, AMWA has the following recommendations for research:

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology.Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22934 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: o Before any CO2 geosequestration projects are fully deployed, more research is needed to allow EPA and/or DOE to develop a risk assessment for the technology, taking into account risks to USDWs.

o The effectiveness of available risk management methods must be demonstrated. This is also recommended by the IPCC in its Summary for Policymakers.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA believes that the GS rule requirements are tailored to address the unique challenges posed by GS and the potential risks associated with the long-term injection of CO2. These requirements include the tailored AoR delineation process per §146.84, monitoring that is appropriate to GS projects per §146.90, and extended post-injection site care per §146.93.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22938 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: o Potential ancillary effects of CCS -- such as pressure waves, which could move hundreds of miles and affect sequestration sites -- must be evaluated.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA notes that a study conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory evaluated basin-scale hydrology and pressure changes that could occur as a result of GS; this study is described in EPA’s Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (74 FR 44802, see references to Birkholzer et al. 2008b).

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22939 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2100 1.6 Target Geologic Formations for GS

Comment: o Effects of CCS on saline aquifers are unknown. CO2 geosequestration modeling performed to-date has generally not considered this type of aquifer. This modeling must be conducted.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern about water resources and the protection of USDWs from endangerment. The Agency clarifies that the statutory mandate of the UIC Program— and the purpose of the GS rule—is to protect current and future underground sources of drinkingwater. Under SDWA authority as implemented by the UIC Program regulations, the GS rule establishes comprehensive, rigorous requirements for permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of GS projects. The GS rule's siting requirements found at §146.82, along with other requirements for construction, operation, testing and monitoring, and post-injection site care and site closure are designed to prevent the endangerment of USDWs in the vicinity of GS operations.

EPA disagrees that insufficient modeling and risk evaluation have been conducted to support the GS rulemaking. To develop the GS rule, EPA considered laboratory, modeling, and field research, which included data from saline aquifers. In addition, the Agency is involved in collecting and analyzing GS project data and information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated and written permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the regional carbon sequestration partnership pilot projects funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS in certain formation types. For this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect and review project data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22941 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into

unmineable coal seams

Comment: - 73 FR 43503 - EPA requests comment on prohibiting injection into unmineable coal seam formations if they are above the lowermost USDW.

Response: AMWA opposes the injection of CO2 into coal seams in general and as

stated earlier recommends that EPA and DOE conduct additional research to determine the impacts of CO2 storage on coal seams. Furthermore, AMWA opposes

Response: As described above, the final GS rule does not preclude injection into unmineable coal seams (or any formation type) provided owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can beperformed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that GS in unmineable coal seams has been the subject of less research than saline formations or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. EPA continues to follow existing DOE projects and plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22952 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5200 2.8.2 Post injection site care (seeking comment) (40 CFR 146.93)

Comment: stabilization may continue for several decades." AMWA also recommends that additional research be conducted to better understand the movement of CO2 plumes and that EPA provide guidance to owner/operators about the criteria for monitoring and modeling data that would be necessary to demonstrate that the plume has stabilized and justify site closure.

Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site care and site closure plans under §146.92 and §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non-endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects, including site characterization, operational, monitoring, and modeling data, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of testing and monitoring under EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22953

Comment: In conclusion, AMWA again stresses the need for more research using the improved groundwater modeling techniques and variable density flow models for deeper aquifers now available. In addition, EPA must gather data now and in the future to better understand the behavior of CO2 plumes and the interaction between water, CO2 and bedrock formations. Above all, drinking water needs should be

AMWA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. GHG reduction and mitigation measures including carbon sequestration are, understandably, very important issues to our members. As CCS technology has not been widely deployedin the U.S. to date, AMWA urges EPA and DOE to continue to perform the research suggested in these comments as well as follow-up assessments of the technology once deployed.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which EPA described a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection, including far-field pressure effects, on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

Commenter Name: Saba Tahmassebi Letter ID: 0218 Commenter Organization: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

21561 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1850 1.4.2 CO2 GS Field Research

Comment: 1. Delay the proposed schedule for the implementation of the final rule. With the current state of technology, there does not appear to exist enough data to determine whether geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide can be accomplished in a safe manner. In fact, in its preamble to the proposed rule, EPA states that conducting large volume carbon storage tests are necessary to demonstrate that large-scale CO2 injection and storage can be achieved safely and economically. The preamble also suggests that the DOE-sponsored "Deployment Phase" of research is likely to provide the necessary data to make this determination. The Deployment Phase is scheduled to be completed in 2017.Therefore, EPA will not have enough data to adequately determine that largescale implementation of the rule is safe until after 2017 when the data is gathered and analyzed. Oklahoma DEQ recommends that EPA postpone finalizing the rule until after 2017 to include the results of the pilot studies. Without the benefit of considering the results of these studies, the safety of geologic sequestration activities will remain questionable. In the meantime, EPA may

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS.

EPA believes that sufficient research has been conducted and sufficient data gathered to proceed with rule promulgation. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water continues to fund research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of CO2 interaction on ground water aquifers and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may occur. EPA is communicating with other research organizations and academic institutions including, among others, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State University, where specific research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2 monitoring techniques is in progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS, and others to identify tools and training techniques that will provide GS permitting assistance and technical expertise asappropriate. Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking multiple research efforts on GS. Topics of research include bolstering different default thermodynamic databases to include more comprehensive information on aqueous complexes and solid-phases that contain carbonate/bicarbonate and toxic elements for which EPA has a listed maximum contaminant level (MCL) for safe drinking water.

ORD's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) awarded six Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants in the Fall of 2009 to recipients from major universities and institutions within the scope of the "Integrated Design, Modeling and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water" research area. These projects, which started in late 2009, include these lead institutions with specific topics of investigation: Clemson University will study potential impacts to drinking water aquifers of CO2- rich dissolved brines; the University of Illinois-Urbana will conduct research related to reducing hydrologic and geochemical uncertainties associated with CO2 sequestration in deep, saline reservoirs; the University of Texas at Austin will assess appropriate monitoring approaches at geologic sequestration sites; the University of Utah will integrate design, monitoring, and modeling of GS to assist in developing a practical methodology for characterizing risks to USDWs; Columbia University will conduct laboratory experiments on shallow aquifer systems to improve understanding of geochemical and microbiological reactions under low pH/high CO2 stress; and Princeton University will develop a set of computational tools to model CO2 and brine movement associated

with GS.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary.

Commenter Name: Jonathon Palm Letter ID: 0222 Commenter Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau

of Water Pollution Control Comment ID:

21640 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1800 1.4 Scientific Background/Informing the Proposal

Comment: 1. Before a project can be approved, there must be an accurate determination of the integrity and capacity of the underground reservoir that is to receive the injected fluids. At this time, it does not appear that the required expertise and good science are available and will be used in the evaluation of the underground reservoir to verify that the formation is capable of long term storage. If the integrity is not realized, the Co2 and other gasses would escape and possibly re-enter the atmosphere. No benefit to the reduction of greenhouse gasses would be realized, or, worse, some unforeseen, negative consequence would result. Recall the MTBE issue where the remedy to an air pollution problem turned out to be a widespread and costly contamination of groundwater.

Response: EPA clarifies that the permitting requirements at §146.82 require an extensive evaluation of the geologic conditions at a proposed GS site to demonstrate the suitability of a potential project site for GS. If adequate maps and cross sections do not exist to support a thorough evaluation of the site, the owner or operator must produce the information (e.g., through additional, new studies), and the Director has the authority to request additional information under §146.82(a)(21).While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water continues to fund research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of CO2 interaction on ground water aquifers and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may occur. EPA is communicating with other research organizations and academic institutions including, among others, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State University, where specific research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2 monitoring techniques is in progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS, and others to identify tools and training techniques that will provide GS permitting assistance and technical expertise as appropriate. Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking multiple research efforts on GS.

EPA disagrees that GS is analogous to the MTBE experience. EPA believes that large scale GS can be done safely: the GS regulation builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23309

Comment: CCS is an Emerging Technology and Many Hurdles Remain

CCS is an evolving technology and many uncertainties remain. CCS employs a combination of known and emerging technologies and processes. [FN2] Known storage technologies generally rely on experience injecting CO2 into depleted oil fields for enhanced oil recovery ("EOR"). Emerging CO2 storage approaches include the injection of CO2 into deep saline geological formations and a variety of other geologies, and are needed on a much larger scale than is the practice for EOR.

[FN2: "The technical maturity of specific CCS system components varies greatly. Some technologies are extensively deployed in mature markets, primarily in oil and gas industry, while others are still in the research, development or demonstration phase." IPCC CCS Technical Summary p. 19. See also Table TS.1 (charting maturity of CCS system components).]

Burning fossil fuel to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions, and therefore the CCS system’s major contribution to climate change mitigation would come from deployment in the electricity sector and most importantly, on coal-fired electricity plants. [FN3] However, there are currently no coal power plants with CCS in operation or under construction. In the US, there is one small 1.7 MW project currently testing capture (but not sequestration) using pulverized coal. One project under construction willcapture and store a small percent of the existing power plant emissions. [FN4]

[FN3: IPCC CCS Summary for PolicyMakers at 11.] [FN4: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/aep_alstom_mountaineer.html (last visited December 15, 2008).]

Since there is considerable lack of experience with CCS, there are also significant gaps in knowledge. The rule must reflect these uncertainties, and be flexible enough to adapt to new information produced by the first major demonstration projects. The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage devoted a section of their report to the current gaps in knowledge regarding CCS. The relevant gaps include (from IPCC CCS section 5.10, p. 264):

• need for more development and agreement on assessment methodologies.

• capacity estimates.

• kinetics of geochemical trapping and the long-term impact of CO2 on reservoir

fluids and rocks.

• the fundamental processes of CO2 adsorption and CH4 desorption on coal during storage operations.

• risks of leakage from abandoned wells caused by material and cement degradation.

• reliable coupled hydrogeological-geochemical-geomechanical simulation models to predict long-term storage performance accurately.

• experience with mitigating and remediating a leakage event.

• requirements for decommissioning a storage project.

Additionally, the IPCC reports that large-scale demonstration of CO2 capture is needed, "a better understanding of long-term storage, migration and leakage processes," and "an enhanced ability to monitor and verify the behaviour [sic] of geologically stored CO2." [FN5] The IPCC, a collaboration of the foremost experts in CCS-related fields from across the globe, then concluded that "[t]he implementation of more pilot and demonstration storage projects in a range of geological, geographical and economic settings would be important to improve our understanding of these issues." [FN6]

[FN5: IPCC CCS Technical Summary 48.] [FN6: Id.]

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology, and adds that much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology (www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA'sOffice of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

EPA believes that large scale GS can be done safely: the GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailedrequirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended postinjection monitoring and site care.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23311 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking

process Comment: There is broad agreement that CCS should proceed by undertaking a few large demonstration projects in the U.S. the next few years, which must be carefully selected and monitored to learn from performance to incorporate into the next generation. [FN12] The EPA’s proposed rule should enable selection of the lowest-risk, best overall sites for these initial projects, and be adaptive to the changes that will occur after knowledge is gleaned from those projects.

[FN12: IPCC CCS Technical Summary 48 ; Wilson, E., Morgan, M. et al., Regulating the Geological Sequestration of CO2, Environmental Science & Technology, Apr. 15, 2008, at p. 4; Union of Concerned Scientists, Coal Power in a Warming World, Oct. 2008, p. 19-21.]

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, and is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS.

EPA adds that it considered information from laboratory, modeling, and field research as it developed the requirements for GS wells. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also involved in collecting and analyzing GS project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of DataAvailability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the preliminary results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA sought comment on this data and used it to inform the final rule.

Commenter Name: Craig Hart Letter ID: 0261 Commenter Organization: Alston & Bird LLP Comment ID: 22983

Comment: Importance of Future CCS Research

Members of the research community and practitioners interviewed in connection with the review of Phase II projects widely agreed that continued research in CCS will be essential to the development of CCS, even after CCS is deployed in several commercialscale plants. Just as research in the oil and gas area continues and is increasing as that industry seeks to take advantage of new technologies and overcome increasingly challenging conditions as fields mature, research in various aspects of CCS is likely to be indispensable in such areas as exploring potential new sites, and improving tools for monitoring,

measurement and verification.

For example, early pilot projects have shown that the most complete understanding of the site-specific behavior of CO2 has come from monitoring the movement of CO2 itself [FN3]. Research tests have provided important information for researchers studying CO2 migration in various types of formations. Well-designed test injections could be employed to collect data on response measures to leakage or other contingencies. In a commercial setting, research-scale tests could be used during the assessment phase of a project before a larger investment is made in fully characterizing an area.

[FN3] Christine Doughty, Barry M. Freifeld, Robert C. Trautz, "Site Characterization for CO2 Geologic Storage and Vice Versa: The Frio Brine Pilot, Texas, USA as a Case Study," 54 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY 1635-1656 (2007).

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatorydevelopment to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Lori Mathieu Letter ID: 0283 Commenter Organization: Connecticut Department of Health Comment ID: 25298

Comment: 3. Unintended consequences should be anticipated, and therefore more time to characterize these consequences should be allowed. Given the unknown factor of time on the reliability of sequestering activities, the time required for these activities should be extended to insure there are no unintended consequences. Furthermore a period of assessment should be provided between the validation phase and deployment phase. Currently these two phases overlap. To that end, it is recommended that more extensive studies should be performed to indicate the impact of leakage on sources of public drinking water in order to minimize the impact to public health.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA believes that the ability to safely deploy CCS on a commercial-scale has been proven. EPA is monitoring international GS efforts currently operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland). These projects are designed to operate for decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Greg Shubel Letter ID: 0284 Commenter Organization: Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc Comment ID: 25301 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking

process Comment: The aforementioned deployment phase will not be completed until 2017. ITCMI ESD believes all research studies should be completed and the results thoroughly

understood BEFORE the rule is finalized.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's need for regulatory certainty and believes it has sufficient data on GS to finalize the rule. However, EPA acknowledges that, because all GS in theUnited States is currently associated with pilot projects, there are many unknowns about how GS projects will unfold and the practicalities of permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS project. Therefore, EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is appropriate. The Agency plans to use such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are or necessary.

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21427 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams; 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types

Comment: Other suggestion and improvements for the rule are that coal seams, the basalts, hollowed out salt domes and shale are simply not ready for commercial sequestration at this time. And that is true whether or not they are below the lowest USDW. So our recommendation is that the Class VI proposal clearly be written not to apply to these sorts of formations. We do favor continued experimentation in these formations and some of them, especially coal seams may become commercially viable in the future, but for now we think they should be written, should be permitted under Class V. We should await further knowledge before deciding precisely that those formations not to be regulated.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS, particularly regarding GS into coal seams, basalts, salt domes, shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. EPA anticipates that in the short-term, GS into these types of formations will continue to be experimental in nature (i.e., if they are to test GS technologies and collect data), and will likely be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells and be subject to UIC Program Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, including those in such formations, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are required and being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.Commenter Name: Leslie Glustrome Letter ID: 0527

Comment ID: 21414

Comment: I would like to underscore the importance of waiting for the results. You actually talked to geologists who go up to Sleipner and actually look at what is going on. Success, it is kind of like saying Lehman Brothers is a successful company as long as you are talking about September 1 or whatever that day was before they failed so, success depends on how much data you calculate and gather. So it is very important to get that information just as the AWWA representative pointed out, before we finalize any rules. It would be completely absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make sure that all data is completely

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21388

Comment: AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and pilot projects related to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the results of these projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized.

We believe that the results of this research are crucial to their good development of a comprehensive regulation that protects water resources from the potential unintended consequences of geologic carbon sequestration. In particular, we believe that research on the potential pathways for contamination of USDW's has not yet been completed. As a result, we are concerned that the appropriate subsurface monitoring methods and technologies have not been adequately identified or developed.

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico), including the feasibility and appropriateness of variousmonitoring technologies. EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

The GS regulation builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21391

Comment: public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that the results of current research and pilot projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized. We are aware of the impacts that climate change will have on water utilities across the country or recognize that something needs to be done to address climate change.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule.

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



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148 Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21752 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment); 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: For example, if EPA eventually determines that CO2 is hazardous, what are the ramifications under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?[FN3 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.] Presumably, its stringent "cradle to grave" requirements will be imposed on all generators, transporters, and treatment, storage and disposal facilities involved in the CCS project. Or, in the event of a release, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)?[FN4 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.] The Clean Air Act? [FN5 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.] If CO2 is deemed a "hazardous air pollutant" under Section 112, it will automatically trigger CERCLA liability as it incorporates HAPs in itsdefinition of "hazardous substance." [FN6 CERCLA, Section 101(14).] The Clean Water Act? [FN7 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.]

Response: Under the final GS rule, owners or operators will need to determine whether the CO2 stream is hazardous under EPA’s RCRA regulations, and if so, any injection of the hazardous CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well. Conversely, Class VI wells cannot be used for the co-injection of RCRA hazardous wastes (i.e., hazardous wastes that are injected along with the CO2 stream).

EPA received many comments regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability 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 particular 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 commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds new 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 substance 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 the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally 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 well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23852

Comment: The CCS Alliance also is concerned about numerous federal and state statutes that may be triggered through the siting of a CCS project. At the federal level, the siting of linear facilities most often raises issues under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Any number of other federal statutes may apply, depending upon the resources affected by or near the facility. Congress may need to consider how to balance the objectives of these acts with the policy inherent in promoting CCS.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

EPA clarifies that the Agency is not obligated under the UIC program to comply with NEPA §§102(2)(c) and 102(2)(e) because the UIC permitting process is considered a “functional equivalent.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26142

Comment: We therefore urge EPA to:

• Address the question of atmospheric emissions of CO2 as well as protection of underground sources of drinking water related to underground CO2 injection [FN 5] without delaying promulgation of the pending rule; and

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

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26144

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

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

09000064809cf9e9

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504 Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21243

Comment: This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the technical and legal framework for geologic sequestration. And this brings me to my first point, which is jurisdiction.

Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Drinking Water Act and not on the Clean Air Act is a critical mistake. The central issue in geologic sequestration is whether CO2 sequestration will be permanent. But the Safe Drinking Water Act jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal authority to ensurethat sequestration will be permanent.

We all sat through the presentations this morning, and probably read the publication in the Federal Register. Every time the EPA discusses this they hammer away that this is just under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it.

This is a mistake.

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504 Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21245

Comment: Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about the special characteristics of CO2. Significantly it did not even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense not, for the EPA not to exercise jurisdiction under the Clean Air

Act.

The science is clear, our planet is being degraded. This is an act of violence against future generations that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must exercise Clean Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling.

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

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21238

Comment: While it's clear that the current regulatory environment Clean Water Act, it is clear that the carbon sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal system, from the emission, and transportation, and to, to the source. And I understand the authority is simply to protect drinking water at this point.

However, the lead agency must be identified to regulate the entirety of the coal system process for the emission and transportation and storage of the monitoring, and contingency planning for UIC well failures.

The gaps within the regulatory framework is troublesome, and in my opinion is likely to be the topic of future hearings if not addressed at this point.

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

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21239

Comment: As a tribal member and the individual rights of Necedah territory I got the following initial comments. As to what, the tribes reserve the right to protect, to prohibit UIC well sites that are on or adjacent to reservation boundaries, trust land, and ceded territories, or Indian countries that can have a material impact on the reserved rights of tribes and tribal members.But a detailed government to government consultation process would clearly outline the tribes specifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that the EPA must ensure that tribes have adequate financial resources and technical assistance for determining the suitability of UIC wells on or adjacent to Indian country as part of its trust responsibility to tribes, and take into consideration human health and reserve rights for access and utilization of lands that are held by international law or treaty with the United States. Thank you very much.

Response: The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan (146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State and Tribal jurisdictions and plans, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States and Tribes interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States and Tribes with primacy.

In addition, as part of the UIC permit review process in 40 CFR 124, the UIC program Director is required to notify certain stakeholders of any public hearings and the availability of the draft permit. The existing public notice regulations require the Director to notify any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located (124.10(c)(x)(A)). EPA has also added a requirement at 124.10(c)(1)(xi) that state and local oil and gas regulatory agencies and state agencies regulating mineral exploration and recovery, the PWSS program director, and all agencies that oversee injection wells in the state must be notified as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit. “State” agencies include tribes. Thus, where a tribe has primacy for UIC, it must notify the relevant tribal agencies or federal agencies that have primacy for the programs of concern. If a tribe does not have primacy, the EPA regional office with oversight must notify the appropriate tribal and federal agencies.

Commenter Name: Becky English Letter ID: 0524 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21489

Comment: contains in its primary energy capture mode. Short of that, I must call today for ending the current inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC and carbon capture sequestration. We need a more comprehensive law or regulation.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21499

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

Section 27 (relating to natural resources and the public estate) of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that, "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

Geologic sequestration of CO2 would have to be conducted in a manner that complied with the laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. Although Pennsylvania does not have specific groundwater protection statutes, the Clean Streams Law provides the legal framework for managing the groundwater quality in the waters of the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of 1937, P.L. 1987, as amended in 1989, provides for preservation and improvement of the waters of the Commonwealth for the protection of public health, animal and aquatic life, and/or industrial consumption, and recreation. The Act states that "the waters of the Commonwealth shall be construed to include any and all rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets, impoundments, ditches, and other bodies orchannels of conveyance of surface and underground (emphasis added) water, or parts thereof, whether natural or artificial, within or on the boundaries of the Commonwealth." Through the Clean Streams Law and specific program regulations, the goals and standards are integrated with all other state water quality and environmental goals. Specifically, 35 PA Code chapter 91.51 and chapter 91.52 prohibit disposal of wastes underground by means that pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water.

Act 70 of 2008, the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, requires DEP to establish a permanent climate change advisory committee, designate voluntary emissions and offset registries, establish annual greenhouse gas inventories, develop an impacts assessment that identifies both scientific and economic impacts to Pennsylvania from climate change, and create a climate change mitigation action plan. The inventories, impacts assessment, and climate change action plan are to be presented to the General Assembly and Governor, and are to be updated every three years. Currently, DEP is working with the climate change advisory committee to comply with Act 70.

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

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

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

a) Costs to establish, operate, and maintain a CO2 sequestration network; b) Safety and potential risk to individuals, property, and the environment associated with the geological sequestration of CO2; c) Existing federal and state regulatory standards for the storage of CO2; d) Factors contained in the U.S. EPA’s vulnerability evaluation framework for geologic sequestration of CO2; e) Different types of insurance, bonds, other instruments and recommended levels of insurance which should be carried by an operator of a state network during construction and operation, and availability of commercial insurance; f) Models for the establishment of a Commonwealth fund to provide protection against risk.

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

The government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is committed to preserving the natural resources and public estate afforded to the people of Pennsylvania.

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States canuse multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

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

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21607

Comment: Currently, 33 states have primacy in administering all classes of injection well permitting under the UIC program, while 7 states share responsibility with the EPA, and 10 state programs are solely administered by the EPA. The tailored nature of the present UIC program is being upheld in the EPA's proposed regulatory approach of "Tailored Requirements" for Class VI permitting. Throughout the 2007-08 consensus process for formulating the proposed federal geosequestration standards, state regulatory agencies have consistently asked that national regulations be inclusive of data from local and regional contexts. State-by-state variations in structural features such as the density and porosity of rock formations and cap rock, the composition of geologic systems, the presence of underground voids and conduits, the commonality of transmissive faults, or the existence of active fracture zones can dictate different siting requirements. Also, the environments surrounding the injection wells can evidence confounding aspects such as heavily populated and/or socially impacted communities, destabilizing weather events, recorded seismic activity, the existence of mineral deposits, proprietary oil and gas reserves, water wells, other classes of injection wells, abandoned wells, or sensitive wildlife habitats. State laws governing water and mineral rights vary widely, and some targeted underground aquifers may span contiguous state boundary lines.

Response: EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the evaluation of site characteristics. For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS.Commenter Name: Dave Freudenthal Letter ID: 0150 Commenter Organization: State of Wyoming Comment ID: 22218

Comment: Wyoming is one of the first states to take the initiative to proactively establish both a statutory and regulatory framework for the thoughtful management of CO2 sequestration. I have attached a copy of the relevant laws. We have invested state funds through the University of Wyoming and Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) for focused research pertaining specifically to CO2 sequestration. We are committed to continuing our investment in sequestration research and development, provided the regulatory framework offers reasonable incentives to proceed with such work.

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS.

For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach and the section entitled, “How Does This Action Affect UIC Program Implementation?" in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153 Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Comment ID:

22134 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: given the potential size, scope and impact of the sequestration operations. Our main concerns focus on states being given sufficient flexibility to regulate such a program efficiently and effectively.

Response: EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different states and in different areas within a state." In the final GS rule, EPA has provided the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the evaluation of site characteristics.

For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule and the section entitled, “How Does This Action Affect UIC Program Implementation?"

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21327Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: 6. NRECA urges EPA to issue more definitive direction in the Final Rule regarding the regulation of CO2 injection activities that cross state boundaries. This issue is mentioned in the Preamble to the Proposal but receives little attention. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 43497. Rather, EPA simply observes that "some injection activities may raise cross-state boundary issues that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking." Id. More guidance should be given regarding how such cross-state activities should be regulated, including making clear in the Final Rule that Owners or Operators of Class VI CO2 GS projects will seek a Class VI permit for that operation from the state in which the wellhead is located; in other words, a given state is the permitting body for any Class VI CO2 GS project with a wellhead in that state. EPA should direct states to consult and coordinate with other affected states (i.e., other states to which the underground portion of the well may extend and/or those to which there could be a subsurface release or migration of injected material) in determining how to avoid duplicative or dueling regulatory systems. NRECA urges EPA to play a leadership role and proactively address these issues by suggesting procedural guidelines for inter-state regulation and cooperation.

Response: EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross state, tribal, EPA Regional, or national boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan (146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State and Tribal jurisdictions and plans, EPA will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States and Tribes interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States and Tribes with primacy.

EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23569

Comment: b. Balancing state and federal interests. The Agency‘s UIC rulemaking is occurring in the context of the development of an overall framework for CCS projects, one that must properly balance federal and state roles. As to the UIC rules, EPA should consider the significant interests and experience of the states in developing regulations.

Response: EPA clarifies that the SDWA does not provide EPA with specific authority to develop UIC regulations for GS that are not directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment; thusEPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address issues related to CO2 pipelines, subsurface property rights, and capture and transport of CO2.

EPA acknowledges the expertise of states and tribes, and also recognizes that some are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23806

Comment: State and Federal Regulatory Responsibility

State oil and gas commissions are repositories of expertise in regulating oil and gas industry underground injections, which have been safely undertaken for many decades. These commissions also have regulated CO2 injections for enhanced oil and gas recovery, a practice that has been in use for 40 years. However, not all states have oil and gas regulatory experience. In states that do not have experience regulating oil and gas injections, EPA and the state should ensure the application of reasonable regulation that protects public health and the environment without discouraging CCS development and deployment.

Response: EPA clarifies that states will be granted primacy for Class VI wells on the basis of meeting minimum federal requirements for the protection of USDWs. EPA believes that the requirement that states' regulations meet the minimum federal requirements will promote national consistency. To further ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance documents for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. EPA adds that the guidance discusses additional considerations for states that do not have primacy for Class II wells. EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23712 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1650 1.3.5 Human health impacts

Comment: Category: State Capacity

EPA Request for Comment: EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing Stateefforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

AWWA Response: From our perspective, EPA’s proposed rule appears to be focused on preventing brine from formations where carbon dioxide was stored from reaching USDWs and/or from preventing carbon dioxide that reaches USDWs from causing primary MCLs to be exceeded. This focus may not be adequate from the standpoint of protecting source water and beneficial use aquifers from detrimental changes in water quality other than the exceedance of primary MCLs. Other water quality impacts could be observed such as increased concentrations of iron, manganese and TDS, as well as lowered pH, all of which have secondary MCLs. Increases in the concentrations of silica and boron, which do not currently have MCLs but can significantly degrade water quality, are also likely

to occur.

This past year, the State of Washington adopted carbon sequestration regulations which AWWA recommends that EPA review and incorporate some of the language into the final regulation. The Washington regulations require that the owner or operator must demonstrate that the "design and construction standards of all facility structures and wells are sufficient to prevent migration of carbon dioxide or nonpotable water that will degrade water quality or impact beneficial uses outside the geologic containment system." The language in this regulation provides protection mechanisms for groundwater sources that may not be used as USDWs but have other beneficial uses, such use as industrial applications or agriculture. Given the stresses that the drinking water industry is facing with respect to water resources, AWWA recommends that the monitoring requirements in the final rule be extended to protect against aquifer contamination beyond that which is associated with compounds that have primary MCLs.

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS.

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

EPA clarifies that the UIC program’s authority applies to protection of USDWs from endangerment. SDWA §1421(d)(2) states that “underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of person.” EPA disagrees that the GS rule is only focused on MCL contamination as it relates to endangerment; rather the rule also focuses on “adverse effects on the health of person[s].” This does not necessarily require a showing of non-compliance

with an MCL.EPA clarifies that the UIC regulations apply only to underground injection wells and injection activities, and not to "facility structures” that are not considered to be wells under §144.3.

Under §146.94, if the owner or operator obtains evidence that injection may cause endangerment to a USDW, he or she must stop injection and implement the emergency and remedial response plan for that well. With proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule are intended to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Commenter Name: John Corra Letter ID: 0205 Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

22192 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance

Comment: 4. Training: The U.S. EPA should establish, on a regional level, training programs that assist in building state's capacity in the science and technology necessary to effectively regulate CO2 sequestration.

Response: EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for states and tribes that describes the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Richard Guinn Letter ID: 0210 Commenter Organization: Eastman Chemical Company Comment ID: 22715

Comment: minimize approach to any USDWs, thus preventing potential endangerment. Concern #9: On-going state efforts to regulate GS. (Ref: page 43497, Sec. C. Who Implements the UIC Program?)

Although we recognize that state primacy is integral to the UIC program, we strongly recommend that EPA drive its state stakeholder activities towards the goal of unanimity and uniformity of technical requirements. Disparate requirements and processes will increase cost, delay, and complexity and make the permitting process less predictable. Individual states should not develop regulations that are substantially more restrictive or prescriptive than that required by the EPA. Many states will also not have technical resources that are comparable to that of the US EPA. EPA’s stakeholder technical workshops had good representation from the EPA regions, but it appears that many states have not yet been engaged. To avoid this and the problems from a patchwork of permitting regulations, EPA should carefully but quickly consider and integrate input from a majority of state environmental protection and conservation and natural

resource offices.

Response: EPA agrees that a consistent approach to regulating GS activities across the United States is important. For this reason, the Agency has finalized minimum federal requirements for GSprojects that owners or operators of Class VI (GS) wells must meet. EPA clarifies that states and tribes seeking to implement the Class VI program may apply for primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) under Section 1422 of SDWA. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum federal requirements for UIC programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS well owners or operators. Following primacy approval, programs will need to implement these minimum requirements.

EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the

evaluation of site characteristics.

To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23223 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission has drafted legislation concerning capture and storage of carbon dioxide to be acted upon during the upcoming legislative session in January 2009. This legislation was crafted using the IOGCC model. If the legislation is enacted, administrative rules will be promulgated. As with most regulatory programs, the states are best qualified to take state-specific issues into account and to tailor the regulatory needs to fit their unique circumstances. To this end, partial primacy for Class VI wells is imperative.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will 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 under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility 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 for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologicsequestration) to be an important part of a national 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 responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes 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 longstanding 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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their 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 and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja Letter ID: 0248 Commenter Organization: Western Energy Supply and Transmission

Associates Comment ID:

22241 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: – EPA needs to design the UIC program to facilitate GS sites that can be utilized by many individual power plants that may not have ready access to geologically suitable GS sites in proximity to such plants. What will be needed is state, tribal and federal cooperation to develop regional storage sites that could accommodate CO2 from sources in several states. Development of such regional storage sites would allow critically needed sharing pore space in states that have the most favorable geology.

Response: EPA encourages owners and operators and permitting authorities to coordinate wheremultiple injection operations are planned, but notes that the rule does not require such coordination. EPA notes that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically connected formations must be accounted for in the AoR modeling required at §146.84, which must be based on detailed site-specific geologic data collected during the site characterization process including consideration of existing conditions (e.g., current injection activities). Please see the discussion of AoR and Corrective Action in the preamble to the final rule for additional information.

EPA adds that regulation of pore space ownership is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja Letter ID: 0248 Commenter Organization: Western Energy Supply and Transmission

Associates Comment ID:

22249 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: – EPA's proposed UIC for CO2 GS rule needs to fully respect states' expertise in administering the current SDWA programs. The UIC for CO2 GS program needs to provide a reasonable process whereby individual states can obtain permitting and compliance primacy over regulation of EPA's proposed Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states already administer SDWA programs and a number of states are moving ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues associated with CCS. However, EPA will need to consider how to handle projects that span multiple states, tribal lands, and other agency jurisdictions as commented earlier. EPA could establish a primary state in such multiple jurisdiction affected projects, along with a permitting and coordination process for permitting purposes would engage other affected states in providing for notice and comment by all stakeholders. This same principle may be applied to multiple agency jurisdictions, such as the BLM, the NPS, and other agencies.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

Given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national 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 responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundaryrelated coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94. The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions and plans, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249 Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22265 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: 6. Respect State Primacy on SDWA Permitting - EPA should respect states’ expertise in administering the SDWA, by providing a reasonable process whereby they can obtain primacy over regulation of Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states already administer SDWA programs and have long experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II EOR programs. Further, a number of states are moving ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues associated with CCS -- incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of potentially affected property rights as two examples.

Clearly, in determining state primacy, EPA will have to consider how to handle projects that span multiple states. We do not believe that issue to be insurmountable. Rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a primary state for permitting purposes, with other affected states provided an opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, and Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes 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.

Given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national 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. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located.

Commenter Name: Craig Hart Letter ID: 0261 Commenter Organization: Alston & Bird LLP Comment ID: 22987 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: Examples of Streamline Permitting in CCS Regimes and U.S. Environmental Law

The State of Washington's Underground Injection Control Program allows streamline permitting under Class V for small-scale pilot injections of under 1,000 metric tons or larger volumes by application.[FN5] Australia has adopted aphased permitting process, which includes an assessment permit.[FN6]

[FN5] Wash. Admin. Code, 173-218-115(4)(b).

[FN6] Nigel Bankes and Jenette Poschwatta, Australian Legislation on Carbon Capture and Storage: A Canadian Perspective (June 2008), available at www.iseee.cajfilesjiseeejbankesJesearch_paper.pdf.

Response: EPA clarifies that, with the promulgation of the GS rule, it no longer considers it appropriate to permit CO2 injection wells that are testing the injectivity or appropriateness of an individual formation (e.g., as a prelude to a commercial-scale operation) as Class V experimental technology wells. Such wells should be permitted as Class VI wells. EPA clarifies that Class V experimental technology wells may be used for experimental projects designed to test new technologies.

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental technology well classification to clarify permitting for Class V wells. This addendum will address shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V experimental technology well subclass for research and testing of new GS technologies.

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

EPA disagrees with the suggestion that it should streamline or provide a different approval process for small-volume operators. To protect USDWs from endangerment, EPA believes that the information required to be submitted with the permit application under §146.82 is necessary and appropriate to provide permitting authorities sufficient information on which to base informed decisions about establishing permit conditions and granting permits. The purpose of theserequirements is to protect USDWs from endangerment, and like large-volume operations, smallvolume operations must be permitted and operated in manner that is protective of USDWs.

EPA clarifies that small scale, experimental research injection wells, such as those operated by the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, will continue to be regulated as Class V experimental wells as long as they remain small scale and of an experimental nature. Permitting of these wells is addressed in UIC Program Guidance #83: Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Carbon Geologic Sequestration Projects.

Existing pilot projects will continue to be regulated under their Class V experimental well permits and must meet the reporting requirements set forth in their individual permit. EPA expects that, as the permits for these Class V projects expire, they will either be re-permitted as Class VI wells (subject to reporting requirements at §146.91) or, if they continue to be of an experimental nature, they may continue to be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells (subject to the reporting requirements in the permit). EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental technology well classification following promulgation of the GS Class VI rule. The guidance will address shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V experimental technology well subclass for research andtesting of new GS technology. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21236

Comment: And while I agree there should be no standardized real-time monitoring of CO2, but local communities, however, and the EPA is clear that states can have additional requirements above the federal requirements for public and health and safety welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in telling the local planning authorities that issue the special use permits, or the permit, that they are allowed to take safeguards above the federal level, above the state level, that are more protective of human health and welfare in that specific location.

The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account the entirety of the problems that local communities will face on a case by case basis. So, while you notice the states have an opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I think that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local communities that local planning authorities also have the right to impose strict standards above and beyond EPA or state standards.

Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities sometimes just defer to EPA or state standard, which can probably be standard. And sometimes this is not adequate to protect the very specific circumstances of a local community, where economic activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of concerns. It could have impact on long range planning communities, and physically alter the environment in ways that may not be fully known at this point in time.

Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1422 of the SDWA provides that states, territories, and federally recognized tribes may apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the UIC program. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum federal requirements for UIC programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS well owners or operators. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements and may act independently to manage development activities within their jurisdiction. EPA encourages local governments to become informed about and involved in all aspects of the public process associated with GS wells, but does not have the authority to authorize UIC program primacy for local governments.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Letter ID: 0525 Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comment ID: 21407

Comment: In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the process of developing a CO2 sequestration regulation. We are looking very closely at EPA's proposed rule as the model that we can use and apply in our state. We hope to have a draft of that regulation available before the end of the year and thank you for the opportunity to provide a public comment here today.Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS.

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

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Victor B. Flatt Letter ID:

0103 Commenter Organization: The Center of Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Law (EENR Center), University of Houston Law Center Comment

ID: 22490 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS

Comment: However, we also believe that there are other barriers which may still impede the deployment of CCS, which cannot be addressed through existing legislative grants of power. Specifically, there are concerns governing short and long term liability, ownership issues, state and tribal sovereignty issues, and possible sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf. Therefore, the Program for Interagency Cooperation is proposing legislation to address more of these barriers. It should be noted that while the Program for Interagency Environmental Cooperation supports the creation of new legislation to deal with CCS, much of the technical requirements which would be determined by the EPA under such proposed legislation are thoroughly addressed in this Proposed Rulemaking, meaning that the work and research done here would be equally useful in implementing the Program’s Proposed Legislation.

Although the Call for Comments does not request legislative proposals, we provide the entire proposed legislation and accompanying white paper to provide context for evaluating whether this Proposed Final Rulemaking should also spur additional legislative action. While we support the Proposed Rule and the EPA moving forward with this Rule, the EPA also has the authority to suggest and comment on proposed legislation that furthers the agency’s environmental protection mandates. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7609). We believe that in addition to implementing the Proposed Rule, that the EPA should also examine and suggest federal legislative changes that would further reduce legal and regulatory barriers to the deployment of CCS.

Response: EPA clarifies that the SDWA does not provide EPA with specific authority to develop UIC regulations for GS that are not directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment; thusEPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address issues related to CO2 pipelines, subsurface property rights, and capture and transport of CO2. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the injection of fluids. EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148 Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21768

Comment: A final possibility would be to pursue a legislative remedy -- ask Congress to address the issue -- in order to give this promising technology a chance to flourish or fail on its own merits. Similarly, Congress should be encouraged to appropriate money to fund the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act, which together contain over 130 new energy technology provisions. Funding these technologies would go a long way toward EPA’s stated goal of addressing climate change.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22619

Comment: One simple to articulate but difficult /complex to answer question that must be resolved is: Is compliance with the requirements of a Class VI well rule sufficient to establish that CO2 has not been emitted to the atmosphere for the purposes of accounting for a firm’s annual CO2 emissions and therefore assessing that firm’s compliance with future climate policy?

It is clear that the answer to this question is not a simple "yes" or "no." For example, there are good GS reservoir management practices that could lead to the intentional, controlled release of some previously injected CO2 that would not be consistent with creating verified CO2 emissions reductions.

As the USEPA revises and finalizes this draft Class VI rule, it must begin to devote significant attention to these issues and begin to communicate and dialogue with numerous classes of stakeholders to get their input on how compliance with the Class VI rule will be integrated into a larger national climate policy.

Response: EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues. However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

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

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22621Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: On the Issue of Primacy: An Example of the Challenge Inherent in "Filling in the Missing Linkages between Class VI Rule and a Larger National Climate Policy"

Given the need to link the issuance and compliance with a Class VI injection permit to a larger national climate policy and eventually the need to link that U.S. national climate policy to an international climate policy regime, careful consideration should be given about how high the bar should be set for granting primacy to States, Territories, and Tribes. There is a significant imperative to make sure that CCS derived emissions reductions are comparable (and more precisely fungible) with GHG emission reductions obtained by implementing other greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and measures. A delicate balance must be sought between the desire to delegate authority to the local level with a need to preserve a sufficient level of national uniformity in how CO2 storage is carried out in practice. At a very minimum, the USEPA needs to recognize and reject as insufficient such reasoning that says because a state has shown that it can handle the Class II program they should also be given primacy for Class VI wells. The requirements to eventually integrate this proposed Class VI rule which in its present form is bounded by the SDWA into a much larger climate protection regulatory structure implies that the decision to grant primacy must be deliberate and must explicitly take account of how it would complicate the smooth and efficient functioning of a national climate policy.

The degree to which EPA changes what is proposed as a common federal rule for Class VI CO2 storage wells because some states might be further along in the development of their own CO2 storage regulations (see for example discussion of "Who implements the UIC program" p. 43497) must also take into account the need for an owner/operator of CCS infrastructure to eventually be able to take CO2 injected under a class VI permit in Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, California, Washington State, etc. and turn that into a tradable/fungible emissions reduction credit (or a verified non-emission) that could be used to satisfy the requirements of a national climate policy. The degree to which the federal class VI CO2 storage policy should be amended to allow for discrepancies in how individual states are currently planning on regulating CO2 storage must take into account the need to create an economically efficient national climate change policy. This consideration goes well beyond the boundaries of the SDWA but it must be addressed by the USEPA as a whole if this proposed Class VI storage rule is to be put into practice (e.g., if this issue is not resolved it is hard to see the private sector motivation for deploying CCS technologies even if the Class VI rule is in place).

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. EPA clarifies that the primacy approval processes for Class II and Class VI differ. The SDWA directs EPA to grant primary enforcement responsibility (or primacy) to the States through two statutory provisions. The first provision, under Section 1422, provides for States to demonstrate that their proposed UIC program is at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements in order to prevent endangerment of USDWs. The second provision, under Section 1425, allows States to submit an alternative demonstration for their Class II programs (oil and gas) where the State only has to demonstrate that its proposed Class II program is an effective program to prevent undergroundinjection that endangers USDWs.

EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand many of the issues pertaining to Class VI wells and have experience with CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport, as well as familiarity with local interests and the SDWA. EPA assumes that this experience, along with the agencies' familiarity with UIC permitting requirements, will help facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs and assumes that many states with Class II programs will choose to have the Class II primacy agency implement the Class VI program. However, EPA clarifies that, while there are many similarities between Class II and Class VI wells, additional requirements are needed to fully address the unique nature of Class VI wells for CO2 GS, and because GS wells are not oil and gas wells, they must be regulated under authority of Section

1422 of SDWA.

EPA believes that the requirement that states' regulations meet the minimum federal requirements will promote national consistency. To further ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance documents for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements.

EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues. However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, consistent with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA.

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

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22622 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2320 1.7.2 Comments on Alternative 1

Comment: Page 43504. In laying out its reasoning for why it did not select Regulatory Alternative Number 1 as the basis of the proposed Class VI rule, the USEPA correctly notes that there is value in having a common federal approach as there are many potential CCS adopters that will operate facilities in numerous different states. This is true and it is appropriate for USEPA to note this. It is also important to realize that there are numerous reasons for pursuing acommon federal approach and that decision will cascade through numerous parts of the proposed rule and how it is implemented in practice and how it is integrated into a future national climate policy.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that a consistent approach to regulating GS activities across the United States is important.

EPA believes that the technical requirements in Regulatory Alternative 3 build upon the existing UIC regulatory framework for deep wells and are appropriately tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant and mobile nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water.

This approach provides a foundation for national consistency in permitting of GS projects, promotes USDW protection, incorporates flexibility or the discretion of the permitting authority when appropriate, and seeks to limit burden on owners or operators and permitting agencies. The tailored approach in this alternative (and the final GS rule) modifies the existing UIC requirements for site characterization, area of review, well construction, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure, to address full-scale GS.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23389 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Some personnel at the U.S. EPA and members of Congress often assume falsely that CCS or GS is commercially deployable now in all states based upon the success in the half dozen or perhaps as many as a dozen oil/gas production states. The development of a national viable and workable CO2 capture and sequestration permitting program is one of the key prerequisites to the implementation of contemplated energy reform initiatives-ranging from state laws that force reductions in CO2 to pending new Federal legislation to require a national cap (on CO2 emissions.) APPA’s comments are offered here on the UIC permitting system are valid regardless to whatever "carbon signal" there might be to reduce CO2 from power plants. Even if there is no new national law setting a carbon emissions limit, intensity limit, carbon tax, or new generation requirement, states also have the ability to set state by state limits on 16 carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under separate state CO2 laws. APPA does not like patchwork quilt state by state regulatory approaches to reduce CO2 through different laws and regulations. It is entirely too soon to know what Congress might do. At this time, we have no clue what Congress might do in the future to constrain CO2 that would motivate any party to reduce CO2 from coal or natural gas plants. APPA’s comments are neutral as to the new legislative mechanism that would "constrain carbon". These technical, logistical, or cost issues are valid regardless of why utilities would want to inject CO2 under any carbon dioxide mitigation standard, reduction policy, or law.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service;Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

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

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178 Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23800 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: Single, Clear Regulatory Structure

There should be a single, clear regulatory structure applicable to CCS rather than multiple, ill-suited regulatory and liability statutes and regulations that likely will discourage CCS To that end, the CCS Alliance believes that a beneficial approach would be to enact at the federal level a new regulatory structure specific to CCS.

Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS andCCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

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

Commenter Name: Mary Munn Letter ID: 0273 Commenter Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation Comment ID: 24081

Comment: General The proposed rule is quite specific and seeks to compartmentalize comments only to the endangerment that may be caused to underground sources of drinking water (USDW). However, the proposal goes on to state that the Class VI injection wells are to be one approach "that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate change."

While such specificity allows for a focused approach, if approved, it may allow

Class II wells to be used for GS of CO2 under the rule. The use of Class II wells for GS of CO2 will likely allow carbon credits in one form or another, even though the injected CO2 would be used to enhance the extraction of additional fossil fuels (oil or natural gas), which when consumed releases CO2, impeding rather than mitigating CO2 emissions.

If the proposed wells are to be a part of a climate mitigation strategy, supporting data must be supplied to verify that goal.

Response: EPA clarifies that carbon crediting and climate change mitigation are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs, consistent with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA.

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purpose of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program, as long as any oil or gas production is occurring. Class VI requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS.

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

Commenter Name: Mary Munn Letter ID: 0273 Commenter Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation Comment ID: 24087

Comment: · If carbon credits are developed, they must not apply to other UIC wells except specific Class V experimental wells. To use sequestered carbon dioxide under the auspices of this rule, to enhance the recovery of additional fossil fuels is imprudent and illogical.

Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that carbon crediting is outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26137

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

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

available at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/Hearings/PDF/Testimony/ EHM/110-ehm- hrg.072408.Anderson-testimony.pdf and

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090423/testimony_hawkins.pdf; and Armond Cohen, et.al (on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force), "NowGen: Getting Real about Coal Carbon Capture and Sequestration", 22 The Electricity Journal, 25-42 ( May 2009)(describing current ready availability of GCS technologies).

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

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0535 Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID:

21438 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tribal, and local Associations (e.g., GWPC, IOGCC)

Comment: USWAG recognizes that while there are some measures Agency can take in the regulatory context to address these concerns, those measures may be limited. In the end USWAG also believes that the Agency should consider whether legislative solutions will be necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take such action. Because state regulators have worked extensively with permitting theexisting injection wells, we believe that we should work with those agencies to continue and to have implementation of the Class VI rules by the states would be crucial to the UIC program.

Response: EPA agrees that states should implement the Class VI rule. EPA believes that allowing states to obtain Class VI primacy may encourage them to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level but are outside UIC authority to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that the scope of this GS regulation is limited to underground injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed to ensure protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.