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.

## Cpportunity 

# HOUSTON

sm

All the World-One Region

November 25, 2008

Water Docket

Environmentai Protection Agency

Mailcode : 28?2T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave

., NW Washington, DC 20460

Re : Docket ID No

. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

### -(V

., -zCb~p_ b 37 6

Jeff Moseley

President and CEO

713-844-3601 ; Fax 713-844-0201

jmoseley@houston .org

OEL 0 1 =

Being the primary advocate of Houston's business community, the Greater Houston Partnership advocates
environmental regulation and legislation pertinent to our 10-cou .nt+v region,

Partnershdp Members include representatives of small and mid-sized businesses and Fortune 500 cazTanre :, throughout the i0-cou

.nty Houston region

. The Partnership is dedicated to improving environmental quality
while accommodating economic growth

.

Given public concern over climate change, pending legislative proposals to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (COZ) emissions, and estimates that energy companies based in Houston and elsewhere could use anthropogenic COZ to produce billions of barrels of oil that would otherwise not be produced, the Partnership, believes it is important that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies become commercially available as

soon as possible

. In the near term, strategies employing COZ sequestration for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
will help commercialize the carbon capture technology and will help demonstrate the technology necessary for long-t
¬ izn storage of COZ as a predicate to larger-scale CCS projects

. The Partnersrip strongly supports regulatory efforts .-6 strengthen in~enti,y,qs fQr .F,QR and other techul,ogies focused on meeting ,the, challenge, of

, 1, 6J ,f : global warming whileplov? .ding energy znd-entjan,cih~ our region s ecoriorii~c f~fe ; :~

Carbon capture technologies hav bePn developed a,z+d there is reason to expect that COZ can be successfully stored on a long-term

basis in .grqperEy *ejectpd .and .ipanagPd .-geqjogiG,foTtnatiolts : FulA,cpmtr~erV~ia~i,~4t~q}a` .~il,l : require additional economic incentives and~early demonstration projects at large scale

. In addition, it is important for business planning purposes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt reasonable rules governing COZ storage in geologic formations

.
The EPA is presently considering how COZ sequestration should be regulated under the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program

. The Partnership is pleased that this work is a priority for the agency

. We encourage EPA to develop rules that :

. ., . . . ,,

1

. Assure that sites are pror,eTly ,c,°,1PrYP~ Tpa .,~ge, :l, and mopir^ ;ed jr

. oa ;d?r in_pfntPct vrlderyr11, .'id sp,irc-~a of drinking water (USDW), ~fnecjaHy .sole sqyrqe, ~quifeis : .,'

.

2

. Establish a new

~-!as Vl ; well category tailored for large-sca?P CC?, ,eaue~,tra ;tion prc, :crt : dnat buslds on the existing UIC frarrievYork, in ~,hiti :in ; the oii and gas industry's ovcr,35 y ;,zrs of experience irr r,ting

. , . . ror nvx ; r

Greater H60ston Partnership houston .org '

,

. : " .1=

. . .,!

. . . . .J~ .~cr~ .-

1200 Smith, Suite 700 i Houston, TX 77002 U .iu

20tnr't~

_ . ., .~ 

# , Np~ 2 7 20,

, . . .r,

4ustin Brazoria Chambers Fort Bend Galveston Harris LihPrtv AAnninnmorv c~

., iFram* ~Vnmiip

. 2

r . .-

Water Docket

November 25, 2008

Page 2

3

. Recognize and maintain :he integrity of the existing Class II regulatory framework for COZ EOR projects ;

4

. Support the development of innovative technologies for geologic carbon sequestration ;

5

. Create and maintain a consistent national framework for geologic carbon sequestration, while continuing

to enable states to apply for authority to administer the rules at the state level ;

6

. Provide more flexibility than has been proposed for projects that transition from Class II to Class V!

status

. In order to fully reflect tit petroleum industry's 35 year successful record of managir .g CC3z
projects, the rule should provide flexibility for monitor ;ng and other operational requirements and

should provide greater flexibility for well construction requirements than has been proposed ;

7

. Revise the standard for determining site closure

. Criteria should be pe :r"ormznce based and a function of site-specific geologic and other risk criteria, rather than being dependent on z J0-yPa- period or any rther

fixed period of time ; and,

8

. Revise the proposed requirement that COZ storage must occur below the deepest USDW

; this is unnecessarily stringent

. The ru :es should allow site selection based upon more flexible, site-specific

considerations

.

The Partnership supports EPA's efforts to imp!enmeni rales governing long term storage of COZ in geologic

formations and further encourages the agency to see, to harmoAzL ifs rules " ,v?th ir^}°raa .ional rules and best practices

.

Thank you for the opp3i!,mity to co :r-m,° .nt on this iss,ie

. "our consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated

.

Onward,

Beth Whitehead, Manage :, Envi_-onmer_ : Programs Dan Wolterm

.M, Chair, Greater Houston Partnership Doug Foshee, Chair, Enviror .ment Advisoiy Committee Tracy Hester, Vice Chair, Environment Advisory Committee Craig Beskid, Chair, Clean Air Committe°,

Matt Kuryla, Chair, Climate Change Work Group

Russell Reese, Senior V-Ice r

- ;~sid+~ut, Pu : :`_,

. Peliry Divi : :ionLetter ID: 0155 Commenter: Jeff Moseley Organization: Greater Hous ton Partnership (GHP)

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21252 Letter Lines: 38 to 49

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology

Comment: Given public concern over climate cha nge, pending legislative proposals to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (CO2) em issions, and estimates that energy companies based in Houston and elsewhere could use anthropogenic CO2 to produce

billions of barrels of oil that w ould otherwise not be produced, the Partnership believes it is important th at carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies become commercially availabl e as soon as possible. In the near term, strategies employing CO2 sequestration for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) will help commercialize the carbon capture tec hnology and will help demonstrate the technology necessary for long-term storage of CO2 as a predicate to larger-scale CCS projects. The Partnership strongly s upports regulatory effo rts to strengthen incentives for EOR and other technologies focused on meeting the challenge of global warming while providing energy and enhancing our region's economic life.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the Class VI regulation is not to promote or encourage the use of GS, but , instead to ensure protection of USDWs where GS technologies are deployed. In addition, EPA clar ifies that injection of CO2 fo r the purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted un der the Class II program, as long as any oil or gas production is occurring. The UIC GS requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21253 Letter Lines: 51 to 57

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: Carbon capture technologies have been deve loped and there is reason to expect that CO2 can be successfully stored on a long-term basis in properly selected and managed geologic formations. Full comm ercialization will require additional economic incentives and early demonstra tion projects at la rge scale. In addition, it is important for business pla nning purposes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt reas onable rules governing CO2 storage in geologic formations.

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

1Program, 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: 0155 Comment ID: 21254 Letter Lines: 59 to 66

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

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

rules that:

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

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

EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological , or historical conditions in

different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has pr ovided the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particul arly with regard to

the evaluation of site characteristics.

For additional information on site characteri zation and testing and monitoring requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regu latory Approach in the preamble to the final

GS rule.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21255 Letter Lines: 68 to 70

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: 2. Establish a new Class VI well cate gory tailored for large-scale CO2 sequestration projects that builds on th e existing UIC framew ork including the oil and gas industry's over 35 years of experience injecting CO2 and EOR.

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

2appropriate 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.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21256 Letter Lines: 72 to 73

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: 3. Recognize and maintain :he integrity of the existing Class II regulatory framework for CO2 EOR projects;

Individual Response: EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Cl ass II Program. EPA rec ognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving

formation.

However, the final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Cla ss VI permit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally desi gned to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioni ng from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The final regula tion provides a set of technical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.1 9. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transiti on of Class II wells in the pr eamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21257 Letter Lines: 75 to 76

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology

Comment: 4. Support the development ofinnovative technologies for geologic carbon sequestration;

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the UIC Program’s authority under SDWA is focused on ensuring protection of USDWs from endangermen t. Promoting the use of GS or associated technologies is outside the scope of the UI C GS rulemaking. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking

docket.

3Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21258 Letter Lines: 78 to 80

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

Comment: 5. Create and maintain a consistent na tional framework for geologic carbon sequestration, while continui ng to enable states to apply for authority to administer the rules at the state level;

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. The GS rule sets forth minimum requi rements, tailored to the unique nature of CO2 GS, which must be met in order to ensure USDW protection from endangerment. EPA acknowledges the importance of fl exibility for certain Class VI well requirements given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied and therefore affords the Director discretion when making permitting decisions. Su ch requirements where the Director has discretion include whether to requi re owners or operators to id entify and characterize additional confining zones, as specified in §146.83, whether to require surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring, as specified in §146.90, and whether to extend or shorten the post-injection site care period or approve an alternative post-injecti on site care timeframe as part of the permitting process, as specified in §146.93. EPA Headquarters al so plans to review initial permits to ensure that the final rule, including all permitting decision s, are implemented consistently, and to ensure that USDW protection goals are consistently met across differing geologic situations.

EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obt ain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allo w independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providi ng states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classe s can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI re gulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS project s by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Fu rthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ow nership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more compre hensive CCS management approach.

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 believe s that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstandi ng policy of discouraging

4"partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Cl ass under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for pa rtial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Cla ss VI wells independent of other well classes provided they devel op regulations that are at leas t as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspec tion, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and w ill be able to develop a primacy application for

Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to en sure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities an d protect USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21259 Letter Lines: 82 to 87

Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment)

Comment: 6. Provide more flexibility than has been proposed forprojects that transition

from Class II to Class VI status. In order to fully reflect the petroleum industry's 35 year successful record of managing CO2 projects, the rule should provide flexibility for monitoring and ot her operational requirements and should provide greater flexibilit y for well construction requirements than has been proposed;

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were en gineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

EPA disagrees that other requirements (e.g., MITs, siting, monitoring, operational, and AoR requirements) should also be grandfathered. Fo llowing re-permitting of the well as Class VI, many of the unique factors of GS sites (e.g., increa sed reservoir pressures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO 2 in the presence of water) will result in an increased risk profile, warranti ng the specific requirements in the final GS rule. Therefore, following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these proj ects must be subject to the operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post- injection site care and site closure requirements in the

final GS rule. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21260 Letter Lines: 89 to 92

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 5260 2.8.2.3 Adjusting the post-injecti on timeframe (seeking comment)

5Comment: 7. Revise the standard for determining site closure. Crit eria should be performance based and a function of s ite-specific geologic and other risk criteria, rather than being dependent on a 50-year-period or any other fixed period of time; and,

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that th ere will be circumstances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the final GS regulation offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe durin g the PISC period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b) ; or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting process, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care is necessary in mo st cases. A 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonabl e and protective monitoring period for most GS projects based on a review of research studies, industry repo rts, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21261 Letter Lines: 94 to 96

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

USDW

Comment: 8 . Revise the proposed requirement that CO2 storage must occur below the deepest USDW; this is unnecessarily stri ngent. The rules should allow site selection based upon more flexible, site-specific c onsiderations.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d 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 process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injecti on into non-USDW formations a bove and/or between USDWs.

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC program Directors and owne rs or operators who undertak e CO2 injection for GS. The

6Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to co ncerns about local and re gional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by th e proposed injection depth require ments; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) a llows for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aqui fer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth va riability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking wa ter resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient qua ntities to supply drinking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21262 Letter Lines: 98 to 100

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

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

Individual Response: In response to the comments suggesting that EPA harmonize with international rules and best pr actices, EPA clarifie s that it is monitoring the progress of international research and legislative devel opments; a paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation, entitle d " International GS Efforts: A Look at the Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah Pr ojects and other International Regulatory Developments " is in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of

USDWs within the United States.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to 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, including interna tional projects, to determine wh ether 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.

7