This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.March 17, 2009

Cynthia C. Dougherty

Director

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Proposed Rule for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Dear Director Dougherty:

The organizations identified by the signatures at the end of this letter are writing to advise

you of our further progress in addressing through a multi-stakeholder process issues raised

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pr oposed rule for geologic sequestration of

carbon dioxide under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). "Federal Requirements Under

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO

2 ) Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells," 73 Fed. Reg . 43491-541 (July 25, 200 8), Docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OW–2008–0390. As indicated in the December 23, 2008 letter that we signed along

with a number of other organizations, we have continued the multi-stakeholder discussions

and have made great progress toward developing additional recommendations reflecting

common views on a number of the issues in this rulemaking, including specifically: whether

GS should be restricted to formations below the lowermost underground source of drinking

water (USDW); GS in basalts, coal seams, salt caverns, and shales; potential for interference

between GS projects; coverage for area of re view and corrective action requirements; well

construction requirements, cement bond assessm ents; annulus pressure; shut-off valves;

emergency response requirements, and definitions for transmissive faults and fractures,

carbon dioxide stream, confining zone, and area of review. We are working diligently toward

submitting consensus recommendations on these issues that should help the Agency develop

a rule that will allow GS technology to be pe rmitted under appropriate injection well classes

while also ensuring protection of underground so urces of drinking water as well as human

health and the environment.

Following the December 23, 2008 submission, the stakeholders have foc used in part on the

potential publication of a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) that your Office has

included—albeit with the qualifier “if appropr iate”—on a rulemaking schedule discussed at

various meetings of organizations over the past year. In the December 23 letter, the

stakeholders described the agreement to include in Class II a classification (b)(4) that

establishes a “bright line” definition for wells that inject CO

2 for EOR/EGR and GS. The

participating stakeholders agree that this appr oach is preferable to the approach in the

proposed rule and recommended, consistent with EPA’s intent, that these wells should

remain in Class II and be subject to the current re quirements of Class II. We also agreed that

wells used for GS in oil and gas reservoirs that do not meet the criteria of (b)(4) should be

subject to additional requirements beyond current Class II requirements. That letter notedCynthia C. Dougherty, Director

March 17, 2009

Page 2

agreement to define such wells as wells used “for geologic sequestration in oil and gas

formations and where the criter ia of paragraph (b)(4) are not met.” In our discussions since

December, we have agreed that these wells should be regulated in a separate class or

subclass, and we recommend that the Agency incl ude in its plans for both publication of a

NODA and the final rule the approach of regu lating these wells used for GS in oil and gas

reservoirs under a separate classification. We are still committed to and making progress in

our multi-stakeholder discussions toward de veloping recommendations on the specific

requirements that should be applied to this category of wells.

Sincerely,

Kyle Isakower

Director, of Policy Analysis

American Petroleum Institute

William L. Fang

Deputy General Counsel

Edison Electric Institute

Robert F. Van Voorhees

Counsel to Carbon Sequestration Council (CCS Contact Group)Letter ID: 0289

Commenter: Kyle Isakower

Organization: American Petroleum Institute

Letter ID: 0289 Comment ID: 25276 Letter Lines: 57 to 74

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/

dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: year. In the December 23 letter, the stak eholders described the agreement to

include in Class II a classification (b )(4) that establishes a "bright line"

definition for wells that inject CO2 fo r EOR/EGR and GS. The participating

stakeholders agree that this approach is preferable to the approach in the

proposed rule and recommended, consistent with EPA’s intent, that these wells

should remain in Class II and be subject to the current requirements of Class

II. We also agreed that wells used for GS in oil and gas rese rvoirs that do not

meet the criteria of (b)(4) should be subject to additional requirements beyond

current Class II requirements. That letter noted agreement to define such wells

as wells used "for geologic sequestrati on in oil and gas formations and where

the criteria of paragraph (b)(4) are no t met." In our discussions since

December, we have agreed that these wells should be regulated in a separate

class or subclass, and we recommend that the Agency include in its plans for

both publication of a NODA and the final rule the approach of regulating these

wells used for GS in oil and gas reservoi rs under a separate classification. We

are still committed to and making progress in our multi-stakeholder discussions

toward developing recommendations on the sp ecific requirements that should be

applied to this category of wells.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing

oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program. However, EPA believes that

there are significant difference s between how EOR and GS projec ts are operated, as well as the

different risks posed by these diffe rent injection activities. The ne w tailored approach of the GS

rule was designed to address the general risk s deep injection may pose to USDWs and was

tailored specifically to address the risks posed by long term storage of CO2 (i.e., very large

volumes, very long time-periods, and reservoir pressure conditions).

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the

fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements.

The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those

projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2.

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations

while allowing for site-specific flexibility.

12 EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance

will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from

Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary

purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The guidance describes recommended

methods the Director may use to evaluate change s in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the

Director may determine whether a project should be regulated within th e Class II or Class VI

UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. For more information, please

see the discussion on transition of Class II well s in the preamble to the final GS rule.