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: 0150

Commenter: Dave Freudenthal

Organization: State of Wyoming

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22216 Letter Lines: 32 to 53

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: To whom it may concern:

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rules for

federal management of geologic sequestra tion of CO2 in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOW-2008-0390. This is a unique opportunity to broaden our nati onal public policy

foundation by melding new federal ener gy policy with responsible natural

resource policy and, in so-doing, expa nd economic opportunities and potentially

reduce the amount of CO2 that is introduced into the at mosphere. As currently

written, provisions of the proposed rules re lated to the suitabi lity of specific

reinjection locations cau se serious concern.

Wyoming has been proactive in its stewar dship of all state resources and we

recognize the need for environmental re gulation. Over the years we have

demonstrated our regulatory capability by meeting and often exceeding EPA

standards in managing activities that imp act public health, public safety and

all public resources. We are eager to co llaborate with the federal government

yet again, to craft rules that work not only for the interests of the nation but

that also work directly for the people of Wyoming. Within the framework of this

collaborative undertaking, the importan ce of including loca l expertise and

knowledge into the regulation of CO2 sequestration is necessary to ensure public

safety while also providing new grow th opportunities for a vibrant new

industry.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes 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, ge ology, and hydrogeology that are pos ed by a Class VI well. Some

degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be sitespecific and conditions will differ fro m state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these

site-specific decisions with the need for mini mum Federal requirements to ensure national

consistency while ensuring the protection of USDWs.

EPA also believes that providing states the flex ibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells

independently of other well classes can help fost er effective management of CCS. EPA believes

that allowing independent Class VI primacy ma y encourage states to take responsibility for

implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to

1managing CCS projects by promoting the integra tion 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, la nd 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 will allow independent

primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

For additional information on EPA's final regula tory approach, please see the final rule and

preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS.

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22217 Letter Lines: 55 to 62

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: Geologists, geochemists and geophysicists from both the public and private

sectors have been researching and anal yzing Wyoming geology for nearly a

century. Their work provides a rich data base and a solid foun dation of specific

attributes for underground geologic struct ures and systems. Our reliance on

natural resource deve lopment in Wyoming has closel y tied our economic livelihood

to these endeavors, and ther e is a wealth of local e xpertise and knowledge about

Wyoming geology which should be factored into any federal ru lemaking regarding

CO2 sequestration.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's

responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

EPA is using an adaptive a pproach to regulating GS.

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22218 Letter Lines: 64 to 71

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory effort s on GS (seeking comment)

Comment: Wyoming is one of the first states to take the initiative to proactively

establish both a statutory and regul atory framework for the thoughtful

management of CO2 sequestration. I have at tached a copy of the relevant laws. We

have invested state funds through the Univ ersity of Wyoming and Wyoming State

Geological Survey (WSGS) for focused re search pertaining sp ecifically to CO2

sequestration. We are committed to continuing our investment in sequestration

research and development, provided the re gulatory framework offers reasonable

incentives to proceed with such work.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and im portance of states' approaches to

managing GS and is aware that states are current ly in various stages of developing statutory

frameworks, regulations, workgroups , technical guidance, and stra tegies for addressing CCS and

GS.

2For additional information, please see the discus sion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach and

the section entitled, “How Does This Action A ffect UIC Program Implementation?" in the

preamble to the final GS rule.

Throughout the regulatory devel opment 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 Reque st for Comment, the Agency described its

ongoing monitoring of states' regulatory effort s 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 th ese state activities may be found in the docket

for the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22219 Letter Lines: 73 to 97

Comment Code: 2123 1.6.1.1 Comments in favor of in jection into deep saline

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost

USDW

Comment: Unfortunately, the overarching framework a nd specific rule provisions pertaining

to suitable re-injection locations cont emplated in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOW-2008-0390 prematurely exclude considerati on of geologic structures with deep

saline aquifers that occur in Wyoming. By eliminating the use of these deep

saline aquifers, the rules w ould effectively preclude Wyom ing from participating

in CO2 sequestration efforts and effectivel y disregards the technical expertise,

referenced earlier, that exists in Wyoming. This broad brush, generalized

approach deprives Wyoming and the rest of the region from viable consideration

for CO2 sequestrati on opportunities.

I ask that you carefully review the comments submitted by the Wyoming State

Geological Survey (WSGS) which explain w hy our nation will be much better served

if the proposed regulations for geological CO2 sequestration are modified. With

respect to the depth of injection of C02, the prop osed rules only allow

injection at levels below the lowest u nderground source of drinking water (USDW)

aquifer. As WSGS explains, the langua ge needs to be modified to read:

"Geological CO2 sequestration will be allowe d in deep saline aquifers in Rocky

Mountain Laramide Basins (RMLB) unless it can be demonstrated that the injected

CO2 will have a deleterious effect on USDW."

This change will allow for the use of geologic formations with deep saline

aquifers, which we believe can be safely used for the inj ection of CO2 in

Wyoming and other western states. If this change is not made, an illogical

result will occur in which the proposed sequestration rules for CO2 will be more

onerous than the rules for injecting hydroge n sulfide into deep saline aquifers.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that there are limited

3circumstances where injection above the lowerm ost USDW can be performed in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a pr ocess by which owners or operato rs can seek a waiver of the

Class VI injection depth requirements for inje ction into non-USDW form ations above and/or

between USDWs.

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to

UIC program Directors and ow ners or operators who undert ake CO2 injection for GS.

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22220 Letter Lines: 99 to 111

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: For economic and regulatory purposes, the regulations as proposed will make

geological sequestration of CO2 nearly im possible. Overarching CO2 sequestration

regulations which do not provi de an opportunity to use Rocky Mountain Laramide

geology will make it extremely difficult to mitigate the effects of greenhouse

emissions on climate change in th e West. I ask that you adopt the

recommendations of the WSGS, and if you have further questions regarding the

WSGS recommendations, please contact Ron Surdam, the Wyoming State Geologist

(phone: 307.766.2286).

I look forward to a strong and effective partnership with the EPA in order to

promulgate regulations governing CO2 seque stration that meet both the interests

of the federal government and the state of Wyoming. Thank you for your careful

consideration of our comments regarding th e proposed rules and their importance.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's

responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

4