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.Letter ID: 0146

Commenter: Kenneth Alexander Organization: Old Dominion El ectric Cooperative (ODEC)

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21705 Letter Lines: 37 to 41

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

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 ai d the development of full scale, commercial GS activities while remaining protective of the environm ent. If you have any

Individual 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 fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on 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 potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21706 Letter Lines: 68 to 70

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: ODEC greatly appreciates EPA's work to ward developing a regulatory framework

for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decisi on to develop regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC

Individual 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 e ndangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and ri sks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long proj ect duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the perm itting, geologic site ch aracterization, AoR and

corrective action, well construc tion, operation, mechanical integr ity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, an d 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 Regu latory Approach in the preamble to the final

GS rule.

1Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21707 Letter Lines: 70 to 75

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC also appreciates EPA's recognition that wh ile the new regulations at hand must be within the scope of th e SDWA, there are a number ofvery 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 pa rt of this regulatory proposal.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of th e Class VI GS rule is 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. EP A recognizes the importance of providing clear, flexible, scalable, and appropriate regulations. EP A believes that the Class VI GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and the public by providing consiste ncy in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about what requi rements apply to owners or operators.

EPA notes that long-term liabil ity is outside of the scope of the GS rulemaking and is not

addressed in the GS rule. SDWA does not contai n any express provisions addressing liability. An owner or operator will be held liable for any permit violations under SDWA §1423.

Under the final GS rule, once an owner or ope rator has met all regulatory requirements under

Part 146 for Class VI wells and th e Director has approved site cl osure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, thei r financial instrument as required under §146.85

will be released if it was not used. However, ev en if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for re gulatory noncompliance (inc luding violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even after site clos ure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

2Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other

remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility for Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21708 Letter Lines: 77 to 88

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

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 St ation and pursuing th e licensing of a new coal plant where these coal-fired power plants are likely to be directly affected by new GS regulations. Additiona lly, ODEC owns combustion turbines fueled with natural gas and fuel oil as back up and diesel generators. The regulations could have si gnificant financial and opera tional impacts on ODEC and we ask EPA to carefully consider our co mments because of the significant stake we have in the outcome of this impOliant rulemaking. ODEC is a member of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Associat ion ("NRECA"). NRECA will also be submitting comments on the proposed UIC rule s. ODEC supports NR ECA's comments, and incorporates them here by reference.

Individual 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 mann er that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping 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 Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate 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 Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch 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 entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21709 Letter Lines: 90 to 122

3Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards)

Comment: SUMMARY

ODEC applauds the efforts EPA has taken thus far to instill "certainty" and "transparency" into the future Class VI C02 regulatory regi me, 73 Fed. Reg. at 43496. The challenge EPA faces is to cr aft a Final Rule for commercial CO2injection appropriate for activities th at will largely be conducted in the future. EPA has had to confront many technical uncertainties regarding the establishment and operation of GS wells. Because many of the technical aspects are unknown, it is also very difficult to develop a clear understanding ofproject risks and liabilities. As long as risks and liabilities are largely unknown and open-ended, private companies will not step forward to offer insurance and other risk management pr oducts, and it will not be possible to obtain the level of financing needed to undertake a costly GS operation. We hope the pilot carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects conducted by DOE and other entities will help resolve some of these uncertainties. EPA needs to establish clear, reasonable regulations th at are environmentally protective and cover a range of operations for which th e technology will not be commercially deployed for a number of years. To th e extent practicable, EPA needs to establish a single, clear, reasonable and protective lia bility regime for an activity where the nature of the risks ar e different from many other industrial activities and the full extent of possibl e risks from full scale CCS operations are presently unknown. Comments Regarding UIC Regulations

1.Because ofthe difficulty of regulating future activities, we urge EPA to continue to use a "performance based" appr oach in developing the requirements for Class VI UIC wells. This way, rules can be readily adjusted and fine-tuned as industry and regulators alike gain experience with large-scale CO2 sequestration.

2.Because information and technology relate d to carbon sequestration will evolve as industry and regulators gain experience with CCS, ODEC urges EPA to resist placing blanket prohibitions or detailed operational specifications in the Final

Rule.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

To address the comment that the rule should accommodate future technological developments

4related to GS, EPA adds that it is using an ad aptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulat ion, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review project data on GS research projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documenta tion are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs fr om endangerment. Encouraging investment in CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21710 Letter Lines: 124 to 127

Comment Code: 2100 1.6 Target Geologic Formations for GS

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, trapping mechanism)

Comment: 3.EPA should not automatically exclude pl acement of wells in pmiicular geologic

tructures. The Final Rule should leave the door open for a range of injection sites and methods provided the owner or ope rator can show that the injection and storage will be protective of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs).

Individual Response: The final rule does not preclude injecti on into any formations or types of injection sites provided that the wells meet the final GS rule requirements. The purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that injection of CO2 for GS is conducted in a manner that is protective of USDWs. This includes appropriate site characterization and identification of geologic formations that are amenable to inject ion of potentially large volumes of CO2 for longterm storage. The regulation provide s flexibility to owners or operato rs to select appropriate sites and target formations (under §146.82), well cons truction specifics (unde r §146.86), and injection procedures provided the owner or operator can de monstrate that the injection and storage will not endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are met.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to re gulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plan s to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropr iate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are approp riate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21723 Letter Lines: 129 to 132

Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: 4.ODEC believes that the states will have the be st knowledge of regional geology, existing projects, areas in need of special protection, etc. and that states should be allowed to assume prim acy for administration of the UIC Class VI well program.

5Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settin gs in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes

that State, Tribal, Territorial, a nd DI UIC Program Direct ors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geol ogy, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Cl ass VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will di ffer from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for mi nimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for stat es to use their unique e fficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important tec hnology, 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.

However, given the potential for CCS (encom passing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a na tional 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 res ponsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more co mprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA in to a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independe nt primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS opera tions 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 leve l (but outside UIC author ity) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21724 Letter Lines: 134 to 136

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

Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate ris k, don't stigmatize CO2

Comment: 5.EPA should be careful not to stigmatiz e as operations and to take positive measures to build public acceptance. EPA should avoid characte rizing stored CO2

as a waste.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule, be ing issued only under the SDWA, does

not affect whether CO2 is considered a solid waste under RCRA or EP A’s RCRA regulations.

EPA received many comments regarding the applicab ility of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Cl ass VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 stream s being geologically sequestered, including the

6possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as pa rt 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 propose d 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.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21725 Letter Lines: 138 to 145

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: 6.EPA must settle the way as activities will re late to RCRA and CERCLA. RCRA is simply the wrong tool to use to regulate as of C02 and EPA needs to find a way to insure that the onerous requirements of CERCLA, (never intended for as of CO2), are not applied to this high ly specialized st orage operation.

7. Dealing with these last tw o hazardous waste issues appears to ODEC to be one of the most difficult hurdles standing in the way of commercial deployment of full scale as projects and we recognize that Congressional action may be needed.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that any requirements for the CO2 stream should be clearly identified. EPA received many comments regardi ng the applicability of the RCRA regulations

and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered unde r 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 appl icability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues pa rticular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that comment ers who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule. Finall y, EPA also notes that

the final GS rule, which adds ne w regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

EPA clarifies that CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous s ubstance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous s ubstance (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 su ch substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depe nds 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.

7Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21726 Letter Lines: 149 to 164

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: ODEC supports the comments of the Car bon Capture and Sequestration Alliance (CCS, or the Alliance) on the proposed UIC regulations. The CCS Alliance is a coalition of entities, sp anning a number of economic sectors, that share a common interest in removing impediments to investment in and development of CCS, as well as mitigating the potential risks associated with the deployment ofthis technology.[l] Its purpose is to promote de velopment of policy by the states and the federal government to appropriately address risks and potential liabilities, thereby enabling the further development a nd increased deployment of CCS. The CCS Alliance believes these technologie s can be developed while protecting underground water resources, significantly reducing global and U.S. greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, and enhancing u.s. energy security. The Alliance's purpose is to consider ways ofpromo ting the development and use ofCCS technologies and to support effOlis by th e private sector, states, the federal government, non- governmental organizations and others, to help ensure that these technologies can be developed and widely, efficiently a nd cost-effectively deployed.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuel s and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment, and CCS Alliance’s comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21727 Letter Lines: 166 to 184

Comment Code: 5434 2.9.1.2 Need for additional instruments (seeking comment)

Comment: We support the comments of the Alliance a nd incorporate them here by reference. ODEC is relying on NRECA and the Alliance to provide EPA with specific comments on the Financial Assurance and Long Term Liability issues discussed in the proposal. We are not experts on these matters, however we ask EPA to consider the following general comments for managing risk and liability associated with

GS:

1.It appears to ODEC that a tiered appr oach with a government back-stop as

used in the framework ofthe Price-Anders on Act for nuclear faculties could be a

8rational way of structuri ng liability management fo r GS of C02. This is discussed further in the comments NRECA is submitting on this rulemaking.

2.EPA should consider a broad array of financial mechanis ms owners or operators can use to meet financial responsibi lity requirements specified in the regulations.

3.While Self Insurance mechanisms bel ong on EPA's menu of Financial Assurance options, ODEC is a small business and we have a relatively small capitalization so Corporate Guarantees or Self Insuran ce may not be available options for us.

Individual Response: Owners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet their financial responsibility obligations under the rule, provided th e Director determines that the operator's proposed instrument is ade quate to protect USDWs from endangerment. The ability of the owner or operator to pay for each activity must be demonstrated, including corrective action on wells in the AoR, injecti on well plugging, PISC a nd site closure, and emergency and remedial response throughout the life of the project. The final GS rule specifies at §146.85(a)(1) the permitted types of financial responsibility instru ments. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's approach to financial responsibility.

EPA will retain self insurance as an option for financial responsibility for Class VI wells. EPA believes that if properly used, the financial test can be an appropriate option for some owners or operators. Owner or operators who choose to self-insure and use the fi nancial test must be able to demonstrate profitability, with a margin sufficient to cover co ntingencies and unknown obligations, and stabili ty. If the owner or operator meets corporate financial test criteria, this is an indication that the owner or operator can guarant ee its ability to satisfy financial obligations based solely on the strength of the company’s fina ncial condition. If an operator or operator is not able to meet the corporate financial test criteria, it may arrange a corporate guarantee by demonstrating that its corporate parent m eets the financial requirements on its behalf.

Once an owner or operator has met all regulator y requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pur suant to requirements at §146.93, he or she will generally no longer be subject to enforcemen t for regulatory noncompliance. The financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it has not been used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain ci rcumstances, for example, if

the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

An owner or operator may always be subject to any action the Administrator deems necessary to protect the health of persons unde r §1431 of the SDWA after site cl osure if there is unanticipated migration towards or into a USDW that cau ses or threatens imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. The action may include issuing administrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropr iate relief. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

910 The Agency clarifies that Class VI well permits may be transferred to another owner or operator pursuant to §144.38 whereby generally all other regulatory re sponsibilities are transferred to that new owner and operator, which includes all poten tial liabilities associat ed with meeting the requirements of that permit.

After site closure an owner or operator may remain liable under tort and other remedies, or under

other federal statutes incl uding, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final ru le preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.