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.From: Mary Munn

Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:42 PM

To: 'OW

- GENERAL@epa.gov'

Cc: Dennis Peterson; Ben Giwojna; Darrel Harmon; Wayne Dupuis; Mckelvey.Laura@epamail.epa.gov; Stephen Hartsfield Subject: Docket #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

Please find attached from the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior:

Comment letter

Docket EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390 Federal Requirements Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration W ells

Supporting Documents: RECCS Final Report Short version

Thank you

Mary Munn Air Program Coordinator

Fond du Lac Reservati on 1720 Big Lake Road Cloquet MN 55720

MaryMunn@fdlrez.com http://www.fdlrez.com/newnr/logohistory .htm

office: 218. 878

- 8030

fax: 218.878

- 4854E nvironmental P rotection A gency proposed Federal Requirements under the Underground

Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells.

Proposed Regulations Published in the July 25, 2008

Federal Register Notice

Docket #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

December 23, 2008

Mr. Stephen L. Johnson

Adm inistrator

U

. S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Penns yl vania Avenue, NM

Wa shington D.C. 20460

Honorable Mr. Johnson,

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”), a feder ally recognized tribe, appreciates the opportunity to respond to the proposed Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) W ells

.

The Fond du Lac Reservation and the relate d Ceded Territories are located in northeastern Minnesota, a region with significant metal extraction activities, associated fossil fuel electric generating units, forest product industry, with land and sea shipping hubs . The region is home to the Ojibwe p eople and the tribes retain usufructuary rights (hunting and gathering) in the Ceded Territories. The area has significant natural and freshwater resources including Lake Superior.

As an indigenous population, it is of primary importance to work to toward ma intaining and

restorin g the health of the environment as a direct means to im prove the health and welfare of the

Band. A s a community

, we must protect and heal Omizakamigokwe , Mother Earth, the provider

and live sustainably within the environment.Gener al

The proposed rule is quite specific and seeks to com partm entalize comment s only to the endangerment that may be caused to underground sources of d rinking w ater ( USD W )

. However

, t he propos al goes on to state that the Class V I injection well s are to be on e approach “that could be deployed to reduce CO 2 em issions to the atmosphere and help to mi tigate climate change. ”

Wh ile such specificity allows for a focused approach, if approved, it may allow Class II wells to be

used for GS of CO 2 under the rule

. The u se of Class II wells for G S of CO 2 will likely allow carbon

credits in one form or another

, even though the injected CO 2 would be used to enhance the

extraction of additional fossil fuels (oil or natural gas)

, whic h when consumed re lease s CO 2 , im peding rat her than mi tigati ng CO 2 em issions.

If the proposed wells are to be a part of a climate mitigation strategy, supporting data must be supplied to verify that goal.

Assessment of the Proposed Rule The proposed rule repeated ly references climate change mitig ation by the injection of CO 2 as the justification for the need for the new class of injection well:

Summary :

“ EPA is proposing Federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the purpose of geologic sequestration (GS). GS is one of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate change. ”

And

“ If finalized, this proposal would help ensure consistency in permitting under ground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the U.S. and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to

reduce CO2 emissions. ”

In Part II “W hat is the EPA Proposing” the proposition reiterates:

“ In ad dition to protecting USDWs, today’ s proposed rule provides a regulatory framework to promote consistent approaches to permitting GS projects across the U.S. and supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology .”

Under Part II A. “ Why Is EPA Proposing To Develop New Regulations To Address GS of

CO2? ” Part II

. Section 2

, states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that much of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities (IPC C, 2007). The burning of fossil fuels (e.g., from coalfired electric plants and other sources in the electricity and industrial sectors) is a major contributor to human

induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Fossil fuels are expected to remain the mainstay of e nergy production well into the 21st century, and increased concentrations of CO2 are expected unless energy producers reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The capture and storage of CO2 would enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated CO2 emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy sources are developed in the coming decades. Given the United States’ abundant coal resources and reliance on coal for power generation, CCS could be a key mitigation technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions ”

And:

“ Congressional climate change legislative proposals (the McCain

- Lieberman bill S. 280, the Bingaman

- Specter bill S. 1766, and the Lieberman

- Warner bill S. 2191) indicate that CCS has the potentia l to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios. ”And:

“ Today’s proposal provides a regulatory framework to protect USDWs as this key climate mitigation technology is developed and deployed. ”

The allusion of mitigating climate change or reducing CO 2 em issions by geologic sequestration cannot be fairly used as persuasive point for this rule without providing data demonstrating the

ma ss balance of energy and carbon dioxide in the whole system.

A great deal of analy sis has been completed a nd posted on the docket of cost and incremental cost within the proposed rule for C CS and GS im plem entation but no analysis is made in terms of the actual amount carbon dioxide that will be sequestered in relation to the amount of carbon

dioxide emitted th roughout the process (Cost : EPA

– HQ

– OW

– 2008

– 0390

- 0073 and EPA

– HQ

– OW

– 2008

– 0390

- 0094)

.

A m ass balance of the participating fossil energy process es, generating the CO 2

, mu st be

evaluat ed to determine if any real reduction in CO 2 can be ma de. CO 2 is emitted dur ing the excavation and transport of the fossil fuel to a power plant. Additional p ower will be required, and

will emit additional CO 2 , to provide the energy to extract the CO 2 from the em ission stream , to

com press, transport, and to inject the CO 2 into a g eologic formation.

Very little data is available to evaluate the energy balance of various carbon capture process es

. The e valuations available limit the efficiency of carbon capture (CC) to a percent recovered fro m the feed stack to the em ission stack. Ca pturing the carbon is ver y energy intensive and may increase energy demand by up to 50%. ( www.lowtechmagazine.com accessed October 27 2008).

According to Greenpeace International: F alse Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save

the climate , “capturing and storing carbon uses lots of energy; anywhere from 10

- 40% of a power station’s capacity

. An energy penalty of just 20% would require the construction of an extra power

station for ever y f our built

. These reductions in efficiency will require more coal to be mined, transported, and burned, for a power station to produce the same amount o f energy as it did

without CCS.”

The attached summary of a study by Wu ppertal Institute, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Zentrum für Sonnenenergie

- und W asserstoff

- Forschung Baden

- Wü rttem berg (ZS W) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) fo r the German government (the full report

available at: www.wupperinst.org

, accessed on line Dec. 23 2008) offers an in depth study of CCS that evaluates the various power plant designs, transport, and storage costs; accesses life

cy cle, ecologi cal criteria, carbon neutrality etc. Estimates in the study show a 20 to 40% increase in energy consumption and the process will only lower emissions of CO 2 , ignoring the increases of other greenhouse gases (GHG).

Consuming an additional 2 0 to 50% more co al to energize the capture of CO 2 is a questionable

tactic that must supported by transparent data analy sis.

Even as this proposed rule is being considered, the EPA is soliciting “applications to conduct research to support the development of sound risk m anagement strategies for the underground injection of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)” (accessed online October 6 2008 http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2008/2008_star_gsc02.html ). The techn ology for GS of CO 2 is not yet
available or known to be safe.

Social Justice: The United Nations Environmental Progamme states: “Globally around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent on energy subsidies annually.

The lion's share is b eing used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such fossil fuels. Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP. ”Mr. Steiner added:

"W hereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a blunt policy instrument, perpetuating old and inefficient economic models, the CDM is an example of a more intelligent, market

- based mechanism that is foste ring the transition to a modern Green

Econom y". ( Accessed online Nov. 14, 2008
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=543&Articl eID=5902 )

Recommendation s :

· A thorough mass balance of the CO 2 generated in the participating fossil energy processes, generating CO 2 mu st be demonstrated to prove the feasibility of the proposal; including mining and transport of the fossil fuel to powe r plant s, extraction and

com press ion of the CO 2 em issions, transport, and inject ion the CO 2 into a geologic

formation.

· If carbon credits are developed, they mu st not apply to other UIC well s except specific Class V experimental wells. To use sequestered ca rbon dioxide under the auspices of this rule, to enhance the recovery of additional fossil fuels is im prudent and illogical.

· Liability issues must be clarified in regard to human welfare and environmental protection rather than ensuring the financial viabi lit y of the commercial entities of power plants, pipeline, and well operators. Proponents wish to diminish liability for C C S and GS activities (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

- 0150.1) and EPA must explicitly recognize the threat
of an uncontrolled release of CO2 to hu ma n life. Acknowledgement of the potential hazard, in a manner similar to OSHA guidelines on “ gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and

mi sts

- 1926.55” would be beneficial.

· Fond du Lac will defer to the experts in the case of pipeline and well integrity and the lo ng term safety of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. However, t he skill of deep drilling brings to mind the mudflow disaster of Sidoarjo Porong , East

- Java Indonesia , which began in May 2006 and is still flowing to this day.

Conclusion: Although the effort made to address the serious issues of climate mitigation through CCS is greatly appreciated, the effort largely appears to mitigate CO2 emissions via a complex sy stem that will, in realit y, increase fossil energy consumption. Wi th projected consump tion to increase

mo re than 30% by 2030 and CCS adding a t least 20% additional demand, one may wonder if this proposal equate s to yet another subsidy for fossil fuel industry.

The absence of analysis of the carbon neutrality of this project is a serious omi ssion. An analysis of this kind should have been the first step in evaluating this proposal, yet it is not addressed in the rule or in any of the supporting documentation. An endeavor of this magnitude should be

dem onstrably carbon neutral and hopefully op erate as a true carbon sink.

The commitment of resources; human, material, and capital, required to construct the network of pipelines and wells for a project that is most likely energetically untenable, cannot be supported without a proper evaluation of carbon throughput of the entire process.

This rule is written for the existing energy production sy stem. The reliance on fossil energy mu st change to meet the challenge of climate change . Barriers to the success of alternate sources of

energy mu st be rem oved so the issue can be faced head on

. This rule will impede and obstruct progress for those competing industries

. The resources required to pursue this undertaking will be in direct competition with efforts focused on sustainable energy sources and alter native, arguably mo re effective carbon sequestration

, utilizing wetland restoration, im proved agricultural methods, and sustainable forestry practices that have numerous and vital fringe benefits

.Experts in carbon sequestration know that utilizing biologi c methods of carbon capture is cost

effective and will include economic benefits. For example, wetland protection and restoration will not only sequester carbon but will purify water, impede drainage (flooding), and replenish aquifers. Many avenues could b e used to reverse engineer the activities that drained these

wetlands. Many studies including the Ky oto Protocol W etland R estoration and Management and

the Wi lderness Society Forest Carbon Report support these alternative carbon sequestration

me chanisms.

R eduction of carbon emissions to the atmosphere is the primary driver for this new class of well

, p roof that carbon capture and sequestration will provide a net removal of CO2 must be provided else any reference to the reduction of CO 2 em issions or climate mi tigation must be removed from

the document.

Respectfully,

Mary Munn Air Program Coordinator

Fond du Lac Reservation 1720 Big Lake Road Cloquet MN 55720

ma ry mu nn@fdlrez.com

Office : 218.878

- 8030

c.c. Wa yn e Dupuis

– FdL Environmental Program Manager

Dennis Peterson

– FdLTribal Attorney

Darrel Harmon

– EPA, HQ Ben Giwojna

– EPA, Region V Laura McKelvey

– EPA, OAQPS Stephen Hartsfield

– NTAALetter ID: 0273 Commenter: Mary Munn Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24081 Letter Lines: 82 to 96

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation

Comment: General The proposed rule is quite speci fic and seeks to compartmentalize comments only to the endangerment that ma y be caused to underground sources of drinking water (USDW). However, the proposal goes on to state th at the Class VI injection wells are to be one approach "that could be depl oyed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate change."

While such specificity allows for a focu sed 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 e nhance 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 pa rt of a climate mitigation strategy, supporting data must be supplie d to verify that goal.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that carbon crediting and climate change mitigation are outside of the UIC Program's authority unde r 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 th e UIC Program's aut hority under SDWA.

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the pur pose of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II prog ram, 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 th e Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporti ng requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) a nd all other facilities that in ject 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.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24082 Letter Lines: 98 to 164

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS

1Comment: Assessment of the Proposed Rule The proposed rule repeatedly references climate change mitigation by the injection of CO2 as the justification for the need for the new class of injection well:

Summary: "EPA is proposing Federal requ irements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the purpose of geologic sequestration (GS). GS is one of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate change."

And "If finalized, this proposal would he lp ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO 2 at GS operations across the U.S. and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of US DWs in anticipation of the eventual

use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions."

In Part II "What is the EPA Propos ing" the proposition reiterates:

"In addition to protecting USDWs, today’ s proposed rule provides a regulatory framework to promote consistent approach es to permitting GS projects across the U.S. and supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology."

Under Part II A. "Why Is EPA Proposing To Develop New Regulations To Address GS of CO2?" Part II. Section 2, states: Th e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that much of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). The burning of fossil fuels (e.g., from coalfired electric plants and other sources in the electricity and industrial sectors) is a major contributor to humaninduced greenhouse gas

emissions.

Fossil fuels are expected to remain the mainstay of energy production well into the 21st century, and increased concentrati ons of CO2 are exp ected unless energy producers reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The capture and storage of

CO2 would enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated CO2 emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy sources are developed in the coming decad es. Given the United States’ abundant

coal resources and reliance on coal for power generation, CCS could be a key mitigation technology for achieving do mestic emissions reductions"

And:

"Congressional climate change legislativ e proposals (the McCain-Lieberman bill S. 280, the Bingaman-Specter bill S. 1766, and the Lieberman-Warner bill S. 2191) indicate that CCS has th e potential to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios."

2And:

"Today’s proposal provides a regulatory fr amework to protect USDWs as this key climate mitigation technology is developed and deployed."

The allusion of mitigating climate change or reducing CO2 emissions by geologic sequestration cannot be fairly used as persuasive point for this rule without providing data demonstrating the mass ba lance of energy and carbon dioxide in the whole system. A great deal of analys is has been completed and posted on the

docket of cost and incremen tal cost within the proposed rule for CCS and GS implementation but no analysis is made in terms of the actual amount carbon dioxide that will be sequestered in re lation to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted throughout the process (Cost: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0073 and EPA-HQOW-2008-0390-0094).

A mass balance of the participating fossil energy processes, generating the CO2, must be evaluated to determine if any r eal reduction in CO2 can be made. CO2 is emitted during the excavation and transport of the fossil fuel to a power plant. Additional power will be required, and w ill emit additional CO2, to provide the energy to extract the CO2 from the emissi on stream, to compress, transport, and to inject the CO2 into a geologic formation.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements apply to ow ners or operators of injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage.

GS is one technology in a portfolio of opti ons, including energy cons ervation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuel s and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the us e of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaki ng. The Class VI GS requi rements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24083 Letter Lines: 166 to 192

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: Very little data is availabl e to evaluate the energy balance of various carbon capture processes. The evaluations available limit the efficiency of carbon capture (CC) to a percent recovered from the feed stack to the emission stack. Capturing the carbon is very energy inte nsive and may increase energy demand by up to 50%. (www.lowtechmagazine.com accessed October 27 2008).

3According to Greenpeace Internationa l: False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate, "captu ring and storing carbon uses lots of energy; anywhere from 10-40% of a power station’s capacity. An energy penalty of just 20% would require the construction of an extra power station for every four built. These reductions in efficiency w ill require more coal to be mined, transported, and burned, for a power stat ion to produce the same amount of energy as it did without CCS."

The attached summary of a study by Wuppert al Institute, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Zentrum für Sonnenene rgie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung BadenWürttemberg (ZSW) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) for the German government (the full re port available at: www.wupperinst.org, accessed on line Dec. 23 2008) offers an in depth study of CCS that evaluates the various power plant designs, transpor t, and storage costs; accesses life cycle, ecological criteria, carbon neutrality etc. Estimates in the study show a 20 to 40% increase in energy consumption and the process will only lower emissions of CO2, ignoring the increase s of other greenhouse gases (GHG). [SEE

EPA-OW-2008-0390-0273.PDF FO R THIS DOCUMENT.]

Consuming an additional 20 to 50% more coal to energize the capture of CO2 is a questionable tactic that must suppor ted by transparent data analysis.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that CO2 capture and the energy demands of CCS operations are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The UI C program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner th at protects USDWs from endangerment.

Other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on available storage capacity and determinations of the feasibility of captu ring and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. Th ese agencies, along with private entities, have identified large areas for potential sequestrati on in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS initiated development of a methodology for estim ating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, US GS published a proposed, risk-based methodology for GS capacity estimation. This report, De velopment of a Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Carbon Di oxide Storage, is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of /2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24084 Letter Lines: 194 to 199

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: Even as this proposed rule is bei ng considered, the EPA is soliciting "applications to conduct research to support the development of sound risk management strategies for the undergr ound injection of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)" (accesse d online October 6 2008 http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa /2008/2008_star_gsc02.html). Th e technology for GS of

4CO2 is not yet available or known to be safe.

Individual Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience curre ntly exist to develop regulations for Class VI wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practi ces regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA has evaluated rele vant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Pa rtnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) , and several international projects.

Several large-scale pilot projects are currently underway worldwide to te st the appropriateness and efficacy of various technologies to character ize sites, ensure proper well construction and operation, and monitor injection ac tivities and CO2 plume and pre ssure front distribution. EPA is tracking international GS efforts and is aware of four commercial-sca le projects that are currently in operation: the Slei pner 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 a nd Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and Ca rbFix (in Iceland).

Activities at Weyburn, In Salah, Sl eipner, and the RCSP sites have been supervised by leading industry scientists and practiti oners. Activities at Weyburn have also been peer-reviewed by the IEA-GHG Programme, an international collabor ative research program that includes the European Commission and OPEC as members. EP A has considered the results of these pilot projects and data from RCSPs in developing the GS rule.

As the commenter notes, EPA continues to rese arch GS and associated technologies. EPA will use any knowledge gained through this research to inform its adaptive rulemaking approach. The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS project s 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 appr opriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24085 Letter Lines: 201 to 214

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: Social Justice: The United Nations Envi ronmental Progamme states: "Globally around $300 billion or 0.7 pe r cent of global GDP is being spent on energy subsidies annually. The lion's share is be ing used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of fuel s like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such fossil fuels. Cancelling thes e subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six per cent a ye ar while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP."

Mr. Steiner added: "Whereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a blunt policy instrument, perpetuating old and in efficient economic models, the CDM is an example of a more intelligent, market -based mechanism that is fostering the

5transition to a modern Green Economy". (Accessed online Nov. 14, 2008 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Def ault.asp?DocumentID=543&ArticleID= 5902 )

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements apply to ow ners or operators of injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. Fuel subsidies are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24086 Letter Lines: 216 to 222

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: Recommendations:

· A thorough mass balance of the CO2 ge nerated in the participating fossil energy processes, generating CO2 must be demonstrated to prove the feasibility of the proposal; including mining and transport of the fossil fuel to power plants, extraction and compression of the CO2 emissions, transport, and injection the CO2 into a geologic formation.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on avai lable storage capacity and determinations of the feasibility of capturing and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along with private entities, have identified large areas for potential sequestration in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS initiated development of a methodology for estimating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, USGS published a proposed, risk-based methodology fo r GS capacity estima tion. This report, Development of a Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Storage, is available at http: //pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf.

The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs. Coal mining and CO2 capture and transpor t are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24087 Letter Lines: 224 to 227

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation

Comment: · If carbon credits are devel oped, 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

6imprudent and illogical.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that carbon crediting is outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinki ng Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24088 Letter Lines: 229 to 236

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: · Liability issues must be clarifie d in regard to human welfare and environmental protection rather than en suring the financial viability of the commercial entities of power plants, pi peline, and well operators. Proponentswish to diminish liability for CCS and GS activities (EPA-HQOW-2008-0390-0150.1) and EPA must explicit ly recognize the threat of an

uncontrolled release of CO2 to human lif e. Acknowledgement of the potential hazard, in a manner similar to OSHA guideli nes on "gases, vapors, fumes, dusts,

and mists - 1926.55" would be beneficial.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the goal of financial responsibility is to ensure that financial resources are available to prevent e ndangerment of USDWs (and risks to human health) from improper plugging, remediation, and manageme nt of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties as it relates to the Class VI well. EPA believes that assuring financial responsibility for correctiv e action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites is an important component of ensuring that USDWs are protected. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final appr oach to financial responsibility.

EPA adds that regulation of carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, such a release would indi cate endangerment of a USDW under the GS rule and may trigger an enforcement action und er SDWA § 1423 and would most likely require implementation of the emergency and reme dial response plan required under §146.94.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24089 Letter Lines: 238 to 242

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment: · Fond du Lac will defer to the experts in the case of pipeline and well integrity and the long term safety of ge ologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. However, the skill of deep drilling brings to mind the mudflow disaster of Sidoarjo Porong, East-Java Indonesia, whic h began in May 2006 and is still flowing to this day.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the CO2 release at Sidoarjo is a valid analogue for

7GS. The situation at Sidoarjo is not analogous to GS because the erup tion of the naturallyoccurring CO2 at Sidoarjo was due to the highly over-pressurized natural geologic conditions in the region (and associated lack of an impermeable and extensive confining zone). No injection was associated with this event, and this site would not have been considered sufficiently geologically stable to be issued a Class VI permit based on the rigorou s site characterization requirements at §146.82 (e.g., including lack of confining units).

GS takes places thousands of feet below the Ea rth’s surface within porou s spaces in deep rock formations. CO2 is injected for GS through techni cally engineered wells with multiple barriers designed to isolate the injectate in the well and protect formations outside the well materials. The injected CO2 is stored in geologic formations unde rneath confining layers of rock that act as natural barriers to leakage. It is unlikely that CO2 would escape from a GS site that is properly characterized, operated, monitored, and closed. During the site sele ction process, operators of Class VI wells identify and evaluate the appropr iateness of a site for GS of CO2. The evaluation

includes the identification of surface and subsurfa ce features such as deep stratified lakes and other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthe rmore, during GS operation, injection pressures

and formation conditions are monitored to av oid overpressuring the storage formation.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24090 Letter Lines: 246 to 257

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: Although the effort made to address the serious issues of climate mitigation through CCS is greatly appreciated, the e ffort largely appears to mitigate CO2 emissions via a complex system that w ill, in reality, increase fossil energy consumption. With projected consumption to increase more than 30% by 2030 and CCS adding at least 20% additional dema nd, one may wonder if this proposal equates to yet another subsi dy for fossil fuel industry.

The absence of analysis of the carbon neut rality of this project is a serious omission. An analysis of this kind should ha ve been the first st ep in evaluating this proposal, yet it is no t addressed in the rule or in any of the supporting

documentation. An endeavor of this ma gnitude should be demonstrably carbon neutral and hopefully operat e as a true carbon sink.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure consistenc y in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provi de requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements apply to owners or operators of injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. The topics of climate change mitigation, foss il energy consumption, carbon neutrality, CO2 emissions, and GHG regulations are outside the scope of th e Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24091 Letter Lines: 259 to 262

8Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: The commitment of resources; human, materi al, and capital, required to construct the network of pipelines and wells fo r a project that is most likely energetically untenable, cannot be suppor ted without a proper evaluation of carbon throughput of the entire process.

Individual Response: As described above, CO2 transport is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking, which is focused on ensuring that Class VI CO2 injection projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monito red, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs.

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24092 Letter Lines: 264 to 288

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: This rule is written for the existing en ergy production system. The reliance on fossil energy must change to meet the ch allenge of climate change. Barriers to the success of alternate sources of energy must be removed so the issue can be faced head on. This rule will impede a nd obstruct progress for those competing

industries.

The resources required to pursue this unde rtaking will be in direct competition

with efforts focused on sustainable ener gy sources and alternative, arguably more effective carbon sequestration, util izing wetland restoration, improved agricultural methods, and sustainable forest ry practices that have numerous and vital fringe benefits.

Experts in carbon sequestration know that utilizing biologic methods of carbon capture is cost effective and will include economic benefits. For example, wetland protection and restoration will not only sequester carbon but will purify water, impede drainage (flooding) , and replenish aquifers. Many avenues could be used to reverse engineer the activities that drained these wetlands. Many studies including the Kyoto Protocol Wetland Restoration and Management and the Wilderness Society Forest Carbon Re port support these alternative carbon sequestration mechanisms.

Reduction of carbon emissions to the atmosphe re is the primary driver for this new class of well, proof that carbon cap ture and sequestration will provide a net removal of CO2 must be provided else any reference to th e reduction of CO2 emissions or climate mitigation must be removed from the document.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. Other options include efficiency improvements and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. However, promoting or incentivizing these techno logies is outside the UIC program’s authority under the SDWA, which focuses on ensuring that , where deployed, GS projects are permitted,

910 sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and clos ed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on available storage capacity and made determinations of the feasibility of capturing and storing

CO2 at the scales needed to address climate chan ge. These agencies, along with private entities, have identified large areas for potential sequest ration in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS initiated development of a methodology fo r estimating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, USGS published a proposed, risk-based methodology for GS capacity estimation. This report, Development of a Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Ca rbon Dioxide Storage, is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of /2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf.