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.Texas Pipeline Association

PlOtricl< J N\>gt<" E,eclkvo lW"""" 

### December 12, 2008

Water D<:>cket

Environmental Protection Agency

2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Re; TexltS Pipeline Association Comments on EPA's Proposed Rules Concerning

Carbon Dioxide Geologic Seguestration-D9ckctID No. EPA·HQ-QW-2008-Q390

Dear SirlMadam:

The Texas Pipeline Association ("TPA") appreciates the opportunity to submit these

comments on EPA's propolied rules under the Underground injection Control ("UIC') program for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells. These rules were published in the 

### Federal**Regi~'ler** on July 25, 2008. Comments on the proposed rules are due on or belore o.:.::ember 24,

2008. Therefore, these oomments are timely.

TPA is a trade association whose members gather. cransport, and process nalUra] gas and
liquids through intrastate pipelines in Texas. Individual members orlhe TPA own and operate

numerous Class II injection wells, authorizing the injection of fluids in connection wilh

convenlional oil and gas prodllC1ion, enhanced oil and gas production and hydrocarbon storage

and retrieval. These injection wells are an integral part of oil and gas production and storuge in

Texas. In addition, TPA members may now or in the future seek to engage in experimental technology wells or pilot projects for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. onder the Class V injection well program. Similarly. TPA members in the future may**~k** to engage in long term geologic storage of carbon dioxide either by converting their existing Class II or V injection

wells to a (proposed) Class VI well or by drilling a new Class VI well for this pwpose. Accordingly, TPA members will be affected by this proposed rule. ll>eir interest is to ensure the protection of the existing authorizations onder the Class II and V injection well programs and to

ensure a smooth transition to a Class VI program.

TPA presents both general and specific comments to this proposed role as follows.

GENERAL COMMENTS

l. Development of a Claos VI injrdKlD well program should not impair or any way modify cxisting autborizations for Class 

## n injection welb.

604**W~.t** 14th**S~** .... ,Au"",, Te

.... 1S701

pt>one: (5'21478--2871 fax. (51,) 413-8416 E"""I oox

..**pipeIine.II~oI>oo.com**As rnentiono:d above. the oil 

### and gas industry relies upon the aulhoriation provided by

the ClllSS II injcrtjoo**"r~1I** program for the disposal of acid or gas. cnhanl:ed oil recovery lIDd

lIS aulhoriZllli.on for**sto~** and retrieval of natul1ll gas and other hydrocari:lons. Carbon dioxide

i5 often II part oftbe fluids that are brought 10 the surface in 

### 00f\/1C'Cli0n 

### witlt con\'eIltionai oil or 

### 1llI!um1 gB$ 

### production openUom. It is. therefore, often a component of the acid 

### ps stream 

### that..

in 50IDC 

### casc:s. is injected for disposal

- effectivdy -.ue:uering the eatbon dioxide component

of 

### this stream. The sequesuatioll of 

### carbon dioxide in 

### this silUalion is incidental to the 

### primary

activity, 

### which 

### is the disposal of acid gas. 

### A distinction needs to be made in EPA's rules

between the incidental sequestering of 

### carbon dioxide in an acid gas disposal and an activity wiJox primary purpo!it is to 

# -,UCSler earbon dioxide WJder the new 

### ",oposal 

### Class VI

luthoriution. ll' A strongly urges EPA to ensure that the status 

### quo for existing operations
(l()lV;Iueted IDler Class II injection well IUthorizations is pnxected lIDd maintained Eliminatioo

or modifK:lltion of the CIlISlI II injection well 

### program would have a X''el'e eoonomie imjlilct on 

### the oil and gas 

### indusuy. TPA requests 

### EPA to make an affirmative statement in the !inalrule

that the following CIlISlI II**~lls** 1m: exempt from the applicability of Class VI wells requirements, unless applicability is reqUCSled by the**o~** or operator of the well: (I) those

CllISlI 

### 11**w~lls** that inject carbon dioxide and other fluids which are brought 

### CO the 'urface in

connlXtion with oonventional oil 

### or natural 

### gas production operations; lUld (2) 

### those Class 1I

wells that inject carbon dioxide and other fluids which are opt11ltcd in oonnc<:tion with an

enhanced oil or gas recovery field. This expTCSs excmption would elimilllltc any confusion

bct

.... 'CCn the Class 

### 11 and Vlwcll programs that may arise should 

### EPA remain silent on this issue.

1. EPA should adopt II perlormllncc-bll!led regulltol')'

... heme rather than the

MTallored-General Provision" Ipproacb it h

.. proposed.

Any regulatory approoch to tteologic sequestration must be bII!Ied on the**roco~ition** tllat

no two sites are alike. 

### Because: this is so. it is crucial that the regulatory scbeme that is
ultimately implemented be ODe that is ftexible and pcrformance-ha.<;ed, 

### TIlther 

### than one that

imposes acros,s.tbt-board laIuiremenl$ that 1IIll)' be 

### lIJlPffipriatt for 

### one kind of site but**i\lllppropriat~** for another. The need for f1eJlibility is only inaeased by !be fact that there is still 

### a good deal 

### co Ieam about Iarge-sWe plogic seq\JCSll'8llion. PmnaluR: imposilKln OfjlidCriplive
requirements oou1d damper !be developmcnt and future interest in these proje<u by companies

that mighl otherwise be**int~ed** in entering this 

### new flcld. 

### EPA 5houId IDe performance-t.scd
SUIIldards and sbouJ.d maintain flexibility in the creaIioo md impkmenWKln of rettulatory
requiremmts. in light of the 

### variations in geologic 

### formatioos that will be enc:ounltred from project 10 project. Imposition of**Mone-size.lits-all~** requirements wouJd 

### be inapptopi.ue and WO\lid unneeessarily hindcT full**~klpil.tnt** ofseo1ogjc sequc:stnlUon technolog)'.

TPA believes that the best approIICh would be for states "'ith 

### primac)' 10 

### oo-elop specifIC. performance-based standards '-ed on the particular geologic chanocteristics md experience with
deep**~11** injection activities ptacnt in 

### the respective states. Texas. in particular. 

### has a breadth


### and depth of experience in this area 

### and our Texas regulatory body. the Texas Railroad 

### Commission. has the te:ehnica1 CXpc:r1ise 

### and knowtodge to devr:1op criteria suiled 10 our SUitt.
Geologic sequestration can be an important tool in the llIItion's effort 10 reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but onl), if its implementation is IlOI hindered by unnecessarily burdensome orinflexible regulations. TPA recognizes that performance-based standards impose an increased

burden on regulators. but if geologic sequestration is to be widely utilized as a means to redUIX"

carbon dioxide emissions, then there really is no a1tema!ive.

The importance of protecting drinking water is obvious. and no one in the 011 and gas industry is seeking to cut regulatory corners. "ITA is simply urging EPA to recognize both the

need for flexibility in the regulatory regime and the importance of fostering public confidence in

the safety of geologic sequestration technology.

3. EPA should not go beyond tbe provisions oftbe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

in tbe development of rules to support geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.

As a word of caution, TPA urges EPA to limit its development of criteria for the safe long term storage of carbon dioxide to its statutory authority under tbe SOW A. The statutory authority under which EPA is proceeding in this rulemaking is limited to the SOWA. Any

anempt by EPA to propose eriteria that exceed the boundaries or authority ofibe SOW A would

be inappropriate. TPA recognizes that it is anticipated that 

### this program will be a component of

any future climate change program that Congress may fashion in the future. As tempting as it might be to establish criteria in this rule package that will complement a future caronn cap-andtrade or other regulatory program, we would urge EPA not to do so. Only after Congress

finalizes the slnicture of a climate change program should EPA begin development of those complimentary provisions.



### SPECIFIC COMMENTS

I. Tbe proposed finaudal assurance requirements span lin unrealistic lind unnece$Sllrily lengthy period oftime.

The financial assurance requirements for corrective action, PQst-injection site care. and

site closure should be modified so as to avoid an unrealistic length of time during which financial

arrangements must remain in place. "ITA believes that a realistic approach to this issue is
cmcial, because it is likely that imposition of unduly onerous financial assulWlce requiremcnts

would severely hinder developm.:nt and implem.mtation of geologic sequestration technology.

In no event should Class VI financial assurance requirements be more onerous than those applicable to Class I wells, given that carbon dioxide is a common and genel'lllly harmless substance, unlike the far more dangerous substances that can be associated with Class [ wells.

TPA urges the adoption of site-specific fmancial asSUl'llnce requirements, which would take into

account the differences from project to project as well as the declining risks that the project

would present over time For example, once the injected carbon dioxide plume has stabilized

over time. the amount of financialltsSurnnce required should be subject to reduclion as any risks posed by that project will IlOt be as great as in the early years. The reduction in financial

assurance could be subject to a demonslration that dangers presented by a sequestration project

have diminished. In addition, if a site has been certified as closed, and the project presents no danger to the public. then participants in the project should be released from any further monitoring or frnancial assurance requirements. "ITA urges EPA to consider mechanisms suchas group ste

.... ardship anangemc:ulS or designaled managemmI entities for the post-(:\osurc: 

# ,.noo.

2. Tile proposed posl-dos.re l'tIre period similarly _paM an UDIUlliuic IDd**.D~riIy ~~by**  puiod oCti.n.

TPA di$agrtts v.ith the imposition ofl default SO-year post-injection 

### site care period. A$

!ilaIed in the Pieced'ng eonunent, TPA urges the provision of flexible.. site-5peCific requimnmts cooceming the 

### knj!th of the post-injcc1ion silc CaR: 

### period that coincide with the timeframe

established for financial asswartCe. A blanket SO-year 

### period would unduly di5COUrage the 

### use
of geologic sequestration technology and reduce the number of willing participants in this

progmm. Creation of 

### a default 

### period of 

### SO yelll1l would discoUf3ic investment in geologic sequestration technology. alld it might also removc the incentive to IQl:llte and develop storage

sites wi\Jllhe most favorable conditions. While EPA has provided 

### a mechanism to reduce this

time frame on a case-by-case basis, the imposition of a default SO-year post-injection site care 

### period by itself could dcttT lTUIlIy otherwise-willing participants. Acoordingly, TPA rccommends

thai EPA provide 

### thai the post-injection site 

### care period be established 

### on a case-by-casc basis 

### as



### a part of the ptrmilling

.... 

### occss.

The required kvel of testing and monilOring should be determined on I site-b)-sitc 

### basis. Imposition of an across-tbc-boivd m:juirtment wouJd be inappropriate given the variations in**~Iogic** fonnations.. and such a requiJeDIem would inhibit the developltlcnt and usc of g«llogic sequestration with lillie:: 01" 110 ro=spooding cnvironmeotaJ bmefit in oenain cases.. Regulatory


### bodies and opcraIOr3 should be free to Illilof monitoring techniques to 

### the specific conditions at

each particular site, upon a determination thal the techniques would produce reliablc data. In

addition. tbere should 

### be 

### no blanket requiremcnt for the 

### use of tracers to ddect leaks. Such a requirement would send an CliODOOUS siinal to the public concerning the risks involved in geologic sequestration. Geologic sequestration will not develop 

### as a helpful tool in reducinll greenhouse gltS emissions if the wronll signals are sent to the public. The utility of tracers for

monitorinll carbon dioxide leaks is uncertain in any event, and the USOl of tracers may create 

### health or safety issues for workers 

### and for 

### the public.

TPA**d~** with the proposed requirement of oo...n-hole automatic sbut-olf devices.

This requinmenl is not imposed upon wells in other classc:s and 

### is no wby sucb a requirancnt sboold be placed. Oft an across thI:-board basis, upon Class VI

..**~lls.** Such a requiremcm 

### would impose an \II_lee( 'ry cxpense ill many CllSICS. At most, such a requirement

shoWd only be imposed 

### on. sitc-spociflC. case-Oy-<:ISC t.sis.

S. TIle arbe. dioxide IIft:UD is a eo.lllodity .ot I**wlSl~** and Ibould be**~ulated** II

slKb.

### F.P A shouJd make dear !hal. carbon dioxide injectak is no( being or regulated



### as a

.... 

### ue or a pollll1aJll, 

### but 

### rather as a commodity. The scquc:steml carbon dioxide is 

### expected

to generate a credit 

### in a future 

### carbon tt'edit 

### scheme. At that poiDl !be ICI of sequestering tbc:

carbon dioxide:

.... ill genrt811: an emission credit that can 

### be sold in 

### lhe open 1TIlIRel:.
Accordingly, TPA urges EPA to mnain DC'utralat this point in time in clwacterizing 

### lhe carbon

dioxide sImlm 

### as a waste 

### or a pollutant in any of its regulatory programs. 

### Those kinds of labels

would saddle this program with the liability schemes imposed by RCRA or CERCLA and would
be severely detrimental to the development and use of geologie sequestl'lttion teo:.:hnology, It is highly unlikely that industry will commit the substantial capital required for geologic sequestnltion projeo:.:ts unless and Wltil the potential for liability is clearly defined and undcrstood.

Such financial CQrllJ1lilmellt is unlikely to be made if participants run 

### lhe risk of iocurring open·
ended and ruinous liability WIder RCRA and CERCLA. In this KglII'd. Class 

### VI pennits should

be

.... Titten 

### as broadly 

### as possible. 

### so as to maximize protc:ctions that may be provided by federally 

### pcrm.iued re1eage exemptions.



### 6. laddeatal1ulIte stmms in tbe earboll diodde urnm should oot cause the stmm

to be ehu1lderiud as a lIazudous waste.r llaurdolU subuan«.

As EPA has pointed OUI. the carbon dioxide sImlm may have pollutants in it that (:()tI1d



### cause the waste stream 10 be classified as 

### a waste. 

### For example, 

### the carbon dioxide

stream captured from a powcr plant may ioclude cmillsions of mereury, 

### a hazardoussubstaoce.

A carbon dioxide stream captured from It llll$ processing pll\llt may have emissions of nitrous

oxides or hydrogcn sulfides. The iocidcntal pre!IL'TlCC of these waste streams in a earbon dioxide

stream should not 

### cause the entire carbon dioxide 

### stream to be e1lt5Sified II!l a 

### ha7..vdous waste 

### or

a wastc. The proposed regulations 

### do 

### noc specify contenl 

### or constiruent concentl'lttion

fl:quirenv:nlS, they merely state that**~(Ilhis** subpart does not apply 10 any carbon dioxide Streml
that 

### meets 

### lhe definition 

### oh hazardous

.... ute WIder 

### 40 CFR 

### pan 261.- Proposed 

### § 146.8I(d).



### TP A 

### urJCS EPA to eilablish a conl8tt pel"CC'lllRge or OODStituerJl COIiIXutnl1ioo of a pollutant in

!he earboa dioxide before lhe stteam is declared a hvsrdous

.... 1ISIC. or some other

methodoIotD' that would 

### promote the goals of 

### this JlrOInm withoul oomprornising cuvi.oounental proleCtion. Tlle COS! of removing the offendina oonslituerJts or pollutants could defeat the

economic viability of the <:arbon sequcstnllion project. generlllc addilional detrimental air

emiuions through the removal process and in the end be counter-productive as the best longterm disposal option for the pollulWlt may be 10 sequcstCf il in a deep well. In 

### short. such
specifications might restrict 

### the amount or kinds of greenhouse gas Ouids that could be stored through geologic sequestration I."chnology and may dcfeatthe prollfllrrl in its entirely,



### 7. C

...... deriuttoo of a K'COodary containment zone should not be left to tbe**d~retioll** oflbe Dirttlol".



### The proposed regulations provide !hat at the Director's 

### discretion.. be or she shall fl:qWre

o

.... ners or opera!on of Class 

### VI wells to identify 

### and cIllUacterizc srooodary containment or CQnfuw:ment 

### zones. Rather than !Wing 

### this provision as a requittment to be imposed upon an applicant at the discretion of the Director, 

### TPA 

### suaaests that EPA esIabI.isb this 

### provision as an
additional denllHlSIlation 10 be made by an applicant. io !be evcut that • secondary confinemenl



### ,.one is prdenl at the sit<:. "[he cxisleocc of a secondary confining zone would make the sitemore**attractiv~** foc permining 

### at1d should 

### be treated as an incentive to make the permitting



### process progress more smoot.hJy 

### and $WiNy. A secondary oontainment lOne is eenainly oot 

### needed to ensure safe geologic $equesuation. lI.!ingle OOIllllinment l:OIlC is all that is needed.
Accordingly. if a secondary containment lOne does exist at the site.. then 

### the applicant should 

### be

IWvKled 

### the opportunity 10**demonstl'at~** 

### that il does 

## exm and to receive preferential treatmetlt in


### the pennitting ptOlXSS as a resu.lL

8. Imposition of**~rTOSion-resistant** materillis is too prescriptin.



### Requirements

...... wxlning 

### use ofpanicular rnateriab should be imposed 

### on a case-by-c:llSC


### basi!. 

### for example. the 

### regulalions sbouId IJO(**requ~** that all projects 

### use COfl'OSkln-resistam

material$. isolation and corrosion prnention 

### i! the**~t** of the proper pa.cement of

cemenL I1Itber than the type of ccmmI 

### used. Any requirement related 10 the use of corrosionresiSIMt materials should be made on a .site-by-!ile basi$. Imposition of inOexible.. across-the
### board materiab requiremenl$ would unduly 

### hinder development 

### aod 

### use of geologic sequestration te<:hnology. given that the use of conventional materials 

### will adequately ensure project integrity in many cases.

9. CasinK material rfiluirtments

... e similarly prucriptive.

Requirements concerning use of particular casing materials should 

### be based on the
planned operating life of the injection program, rnther than 

### the 

### life of the stornlle program. Long·term exposure of the casing materials, during storage. can be dealt with throuj,\h plugging if



### necessary.

10. Requiring that the injfCIioD wne !x !xlo

... the Iowermon USDW is onerous 

### ud unjuSlil'"ll'd.

TPA disagrees "'1th 

### the pmposallhat geologic !lCQue:stmtion be limited in all ClIllCS to an injeclion 

### zone that 

### occurs below the \owermost WJdcrground 

### source of drinking water (\JSDW"). Rather, a peOOI'UWlCe-based lIpplt*h should be taken. in wbich the focus 

### i! on the

QOIlwnment qualities of the inject.ion inlel'Vlll and 011 the o\'Cnl1 geological environment, 001 simply on ",1Jdber the reservoir 

### is above or below the lowermost USDW$. TPA would DOle that
carbon dKJxide bas bttn injected above the lowermost USDWs for decades without incidem in

connect.ioo 

### with mhanc:cd oil and 

### gas nlCOvcry dToru in Texas. Imposilion of an inflexibk requirement that injection oo1y 

### occur below 

### the kMemlOSl USDW would unduly 

### hinder the use
of geologic sequestration technology, and it would be partieularty inappropriate in imtllnl::es

where an inje<;tion site WlIs sitlWed 1lboYl: a USDW but there WllS a great distance bo;:t

.. CCil the injection site and the USDW and the characteristics of the intervening space: Pf':,'ented migration**betvl;~en** the site lU1d the USDW. EPA's focus should be 

### on the particular physical cl\anlo;leristics

that arc JIlcsented. including distance and physical characteristics of the intervening space such

as discusstd. above. as well as the OOIltainmcnl qualities of the injection site being 

### proposed. A site-specific approach

..... ould increa.'le the use 

### at1d thus the effectiveness of geologic 5equeslIlltion
technology.II. GnllldfalllfriDl!: af."t'U t'Omtrudioa .lalld.,-ds for ClUJ II aDd 

## a-. V

.. -dh .hould

bot' pl'O\'ided ."itbolll**~DdilioD.**

EPA 

### proposes 10 grandfathc:r 

### dr ",-ell conslrUction standards for a Class II 

### and a Class V**",,~11** tbal is converted to a Class VI**~II** and 

### rrque:sl$ C(lllllllelIlS on 

### how Ibis proposal may alTn:l oomplianct' with 

### dr proposed well (;OllSlruetion slandards for Class VI wells. TPA believes that

!he conslruction standards for an existing Class II or V well thaI is converted to a Class VI well

should be accepled by EPA as having met the CIlllIS VI well construction requirements. The meaning of Mgmndfathering" an environmental requirement is just lhat: !he requirements in place at the time continue to apply. If this were not the case, a viable sequestration project may

not occur as development ofa new well may be cost prohibitive.

TPA rewgnizes that Mkntificatioo of Ion¥ lenll. liability 

### is beyond this rulemaking.
However, TPA believe;; it 

### is imjlONnt to note that clarification of wbiclt partie3 would be**~ible** for uninteoded mignllion 01" slmilar problems after I**~11** bIId t-n clost'd is vitally important 10 the long lenD suettss of this progntm. Such an issue sbouId be 

### addressed by
legislation at eithc:r the state or fedcrallevel.

In**cl~ing.** we wish 10 expr1:ss again that TPA appreciates the opponunity to provide

these comments on this rulemaking for a program lila! will be vitally important to our national policies 10 address climate change.Letter ID: 0143 Commenter: Patrick Nugent Organization: Texas Pipe line Association (TPA)

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23123 Letter Lines: 53 to 81

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: 1. Development of a Class VI injecti on well program should not impair or any way modify existing authorizat ions for Class injection wells.

As mentioned above, the oil and gas i ndustry relies upon the authorization provided by the Class H injec tion well program for the dis posal of acid or sour gas, enhanced oil recovery and as aut horization for storage and retrieval of natural gas and other hydrocarbons. Carbon diox ide is often a part of the fluids that are brought to the surface in connec tion with conventional oil or natural gas production operations. It is, therefor e, often a component of the acid gas stream that, in some cases, is injected for disposal -- effectively sequestering the carbon dioxide component of this str eam. The sequestration of carbon dioxide

in this situation is incidental to the primary activity, which is the disposal of acid gas. A distinction needs to be made in EPA's rules between the incidental sequestering of carbon dioxide in an acid gas disposal operation and an activity whose primary purpose is to sequester carbon dioxide under the new proposed Class VI authorization. TPA str ongly urges EPA to ensure that the status quo for existing operations conducted under Class II injection well authorizations is protected and maintain ed. Elimination or modification of the Class II injection well program would have a severe economic impact on the oil and gas industry. TPA requests EPA to make an affirmative statement in the final rule that the following Class II wells ar e exempt from the applicability of Class VI wells requirements, unless applic ability is requested by the owner or operator of the well: (1) those Class II wells that inject carbon dioxide and other fluids which are brought to the su rface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas production operations; and (2) those Class II wells that inject carbon dioxide and other fluids wh ich are operated in connection with an enhanced oil or gas recovery field. This express exemption would eliminate any

confusion between the Class II and VI well programs that may arise should EPA

remain silent on this issue.

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 EOR, 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 EOR activities is that a certain percentage of the CO 2 is trapped in the receiving

formation.

1The Agency believes that the nature and risks associated with CO2 injection for the primary purpose of long term storage poses different risk s than injection for the primary purpose of ER, and therefore has developed new Class VI regul ations to address these unique risks. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected for long term storage is significantly greater than for EOR operations. Reservoir pressure conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than Class II EOR projects.

EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not “ex empt” any specific activity from Class VI requirements, but rather defines the tailored requirements that are necessary for the long-term storage of CO2 in order to protect USDWs. The fi nal Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI require ments. The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those pr ojects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. Th e final regulation provides a set of technical

factors for the Director to evaluate in maki ng this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditiona l Class II operations while allowi ng for site-specific flexibility.

EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The gu idance describes the methods

available for the Director to use in order to de termine changes in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the Director may determine whether a proj ect should be regulated within the Class II or Class VI UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. For more information, please

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

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23124 Letter Lines: 83 to 117

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

Comment: 2. EPA should adopt a performance-based regulatory scheme rather than the "Tailored-General Provision" approach it has proposed. Any regulatory approach to geologic sequestration must be based on the recogni tion that no two sites are alike. Because this is so, it is crucia l that the regulatory scheme that is ultimately implemented be one that is fl exible and performance-based, rather than one that imposes across-the-board re quirements that may be appropriate for one kind of site but inappropriate for another. The need for flexibility is only increased by the fact that there is still a good deal to learn about large-scale geologic sequestration. Premature imposition of prescriptive requirements could damper the development and future intere st in these projects by companies that might otherwise be interested in en tering this new field. EPA should use

2performance-based standards and should main tain flexibility in the creation and implementation of regulatory requirements , in light of the variations in geologic formations that will be encounter ed from project to project. Imposition of "one-size-fits-all" requirements would be inappropriate and would unnecessarily hinder full development of geologic sequest ration technology.

TPA believes that the best a pproach would be for states with primacy to develop specific, performance-based standards based on the particular geologic characteristics and experience with deep well injection activities present in the respective states. Texas, in part icular, has a breadth and depth of experience in this area and our Texa s regulatory body, the Texas Railroad Commission, has the technical expertise and knowledge to develop criteria suited to our state. Geologic sequestration can be an important tool in the nation's effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but only if its implementation is not hindered by unnecessarily burdensome or in flexible regulations. TPA recognizes that performance-based standards impose an increased burden on regulators, but if geologic sequestration is to be wide ly utilized as a means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then there really is no alternative.

The importance of protecting drinking wa ter is obvious, and no one in the oil and gas industry is seeking to cut regula tory corners. TPA is simply urging EPA to recognize both the need for flexibili ty in the regulatory regime and the importance of fostering public confid ence in the safety of geologic sequestration technology.

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.

In response to the comment that States with primacy be able to develop “performance-based standards,” the Agency clarifies that States, Trib es, and Territories can develop requirements for Class VI and submit primacy applications (unde r Section 1422 of the SDWA) for review and approval by EPA as long as the requirements are as stringent as or more stringent than the Federal minimum requirements.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23125 Letter Lines: 113 to 117

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

Comment: The importance of protecting drinking wa ter is obvious, and no one in the oil and gas industry is seeking to cut regula tory corners. TPA is simply urging EPA

3to recognize both the need for flexibili ty in the regulatory regime and the importance of fostering public confid ence in the safety of geologic sequestration technology.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its bu oyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EP A expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from inj ection formations and protect USDWs. Thus, EPA believes that the GS rule will foster p ublic confidence in the safety of GS.

EPA agrees that flexibility is important. EPA not es that, under the final rule, many of the permit requirements will be established through site-speci fic plans developed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director. Consequently, EPA anticipates that owners or operators will consult with the Director as they develop, impl ement, and update these plans. The final GS regulation gives the Director disc retion to set permit criteria that are appropriate to site-specific conditions. The regulation pr ovides flexibility to select approp riate sites and target formations (under §146.82), well construction specifics (under §146.86), and te sting and monitoring regimes (under §146.90), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate that the injection and storage will not endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are met.

In addition, the final rule affords the Director flexibility to approve alternatives to the requirements in some cases. For example, the Director may in certain situations modify the length of the post-injection site care period, allow the use of a lternate methods for mechanical integrity testing (if approved by EPA), and waive the requirement that wells be designed to inject

below the lowermost USDW.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23126 Letter Lines: 119 to 132

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2

Comment: 3. EPA should not go beyond the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in the development of rules to support geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. As a word of caution, TPA urge s EPA to limit its development of criteria for the safe long term storag e of carbon dioxide to its statutory authority under the SDWA. The statutory au thority under which EPA is proceeding in this rulemaking is limited to the SDWA. Any attempt by EPA to propose

criteria that exceed the boundaries or authority of the SDWA would be inappropriate. TPA recognizes that it is an ticipated that this program will be a component of any future climate change pr ogram that Congress may fashion in the future. As tempting as it might be to es tablish criteria in this rule package that will complement a future carbon cap -andtrade or other regulatory program, we would urge EPA not to do so. Only after Congress finalizes the structure of a climate change program should EPA begin development of those complimentary

4provisions.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Ma nagement). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redunda ncy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please s ee the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

EPA adds that regulating carbon cap and trade is outside of th e UIC program's authority under

SDWA.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23127 Letter Lines: 136 to 146

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financia l responsibility requirements (40 CFR 146.85)

Comment: 1. The proposed financial assurance requirements span an unrealistic and unnecessarily lengthy period of time. The financial assurance requirements for corrective action, post-injecti on site care, and site clos ure should be modified so as to avoid an unrealistic length of time during which financial arrangements must remain in place. TPA believes that a realistic approach to this issue is crucial, because it is likely that imposition of unduly onerous financial assurance requirements would severely hinder development and implementation of geologic sequestration technology. In no event should Class VI financial assurance requirements be more onerous th an those applicable to Class I wells, given that carbon dioxide is a common a nd generally harmless substance, unlike the far more dangerous substances that can be associated with Class I wells. TPA

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements fo r financial respons ibility are overly stringent. The goal of financial re sponsibility is to ensure that resources are available to prevent the endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or opera tor experiences financial difficu lties throughout th e life of the project.

EPA believes that minimum financial responsibi lity requirements are necessary to prevent endangerment of USDWs by to holding well owne rs or operators accountable for the safe operation and proper closure of the Class VI wells while avoiding expense and risk to the public.

5EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to encourage the use of GS; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

Additionally, EPA is deve loping guidance (available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm) that describes the types of financial instruments that owners or operato rs can use to meet financial responsibility requirements for GS wells.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23128 Letter Lines: 146 to 154

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financia l responsibility requirements (40 CFR 146.85)

Comment: the far more dangerous substances that can be associated with Class I wells. TPA urges the adoption of site-specific fina ncial assurance requirements, which

would take into account the differences from project to project as well as the declining risks that the project would pr esent over time For example, once the injected carbon dioxide plume has stabili zed over time, the am ount of financial assurance required should be subject to reduction as any risks posed by that project will not be as grea t as in the early years. The reduction in financial assurance could be subject to a demons tration that dangers presented by a sequestration project have diminished. In addition, if a site ha s been certified

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to al low a flexible approach for financial responsibility. Under the final GS rule owners or operators may c hoose from a variety of financial instruments to demonstrate that they meeting the financial responsibility provisions, provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to protect USDWs from endangerment, which for example could mean to pay for each activity for which financial responsibility 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.

The cost of securing financial responsibility inst ruments will be based on whether or not a third party financial institution is used and the agr eement between the financ ial institution and the owner or operator. EPA expects that some third party providers, such as insurers, will take risk into account when determining the cost of c overage. However, cost is expected to depend heavily on the estimated cost of covered activitie s as well as certain site-specific factors.

In order to assist owners or operators and financial instituti ons in achieving accurate cost estimates, EPA is developing guidance (available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestra tion.cfm) to help owners or operators, permitting authorities, and third parties choose and evaluate appr opriate financial methods. EPA

6plans to include a discussion of how to estimate costs, including how to adjust cost estimates for inflation, in its guidance on m eeting financial responsibility requirements for GS wells.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23129 Letter Lines: 154 to 157

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: sequestration project have diminished. In addition, if a site ha s been certified as closed, and the project presents no da nger to the public, then participants in the project should be released from any further monitoring or financial assurance requirements. TPA urges EPA to consider mechanisms such as group

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owne r or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or opera tor will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not 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 ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed 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.

Furthermore, 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.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23130 Letter Lines: 157 to 159

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

7Comment: assurance requirements. TPA urges EPA to consider mechanisms such as group stewardship arrangements or designated management enti ties for the post-closure period.

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owne r or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or opera tor will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not 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 ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed 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.

Furthermore, 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. Please note that EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal gove rnment or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

EPA notes that under SDWA, EPA has the genera l authority to set fi nancial responsibility requirements for injection well owners or operato rs to ensure that adequate resources are available to protect USDWs thr oughout the life of the GS project. However, this authority does not extend to allowing the Agency to create a fi nancial instrument with EPA as the trustee. Furthermore, EPA does not have authority in the SDWA to create a trust fund. The Agency

clarifies that the trust funds th at are addressed as financial re sponsibility instruments through the GS rule are set up by individual ow ners or operators and are differe nt from a national-level trust described by the commenters that would cover large numbers of GS projects.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23131 Letter Lines: 161 to 163

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

8Comment: 2. The proposed post-closure care period similarly spans an unrealistic and unnecessarily lengthy period of time. TPA disagrees with the imposition of a default 50-year post-injection site car e period. As stated in the preceding

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a post-injection si te care timeframe of 50 years is excessive for most Class VI wells. EPA proposed a default post-injection s ite care timeframe of 50 years based on a review of research studies , industry reports, and existing environmental programs. This analysis was included in an EPA- prepared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computationa l Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon

Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review a nd Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." EPA assessed various default timeframes based on additional review of research studies and evaluation of public commen ts. While numerous commenters suggested that EPA shorten the monitoring timeframe, none of the commenters provided suffi cient data or other evidence to warrant a change in the proposed timeframe. While the 10- or 30-year timeframe suggested by some of these commenters may be within the timeframe suggested in some studies, EPA believes that the potential risks of endange ring USDWs will likely no t decline within these timeframes and available data, including da ta submitted by commenters, do not support a

different default timeframe. However, EPA recognizes that there may be site s where the 50 year post injection site care timeframe may be either not appropriate or more burdensome than necessary based on sitespecific conditions. For this reason, the GS rule o ffers owners or operators flexibility regarding

the duration of the PISC timefra me by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-in jection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res 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, as the commenter suggests.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23132 Letter Lines: 163 to 166

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

Comment: default 50-year post-injection site car e period. As stated in the preceding comment, TPA urges the provision of fl exible, site-specific requirements concerning the length of the post-injection site care period that coincide with

the timeframe established for financial assurance. A blanket 50-year period

9Individual Response: As stated above, EPA disagrees that a post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years is excessive for most Class VI we lls. However, EPA recogni zes that there may be sites where the 50 year post injection site care ti meframe may be either not appropriate or more burdensome than necessary based on site-specific conditions. For this reason, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the du ration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the

Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requiremen ts at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director

discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timef rame may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pur suant to requireme nts at §146.93(c). EPA clarifies that owners or operators will need to demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility throughout the pos t-injection site care pe riod, as required at 146.85. EPA recognizes that there are challenge s associated with ensuring fundi ng for activities that will occur far in the future. However, the Agency belie ves that in order to protect USDWs from endangerment under the SDWA operators must demonstrate under §146.85 that financial resources are available to plug the injection well and provide post-injection site care at the point in time that the first CO2 is injected.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23133 Letter Lines: 166 to 174

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

Comment: the timeframe established for financial assurance. A blanket 50-year period would unduly discourage the use of geologi c sequestration technology and reduce the number of willing participants in this program. Creation of a default period of 50 years would discourage investment in geologic sequestration technology, and it might also remove the incentive to locate and develop storage sites with

the most favorable conditions. While EPA ha s provided a mechanism to reduce thistime frame on a case-by-case basis, the imposition of a default 50-year postinjection site care period by itself could deter many otherwise-willing participants. Accordingly, TPA recommends that EPA provide that the postIndividual Response: EPA recognizes that there are challenges associated with assuring funding

for activities that will occur far in the future. Ho wever, the Agency believes that operators must

demonstrate that financial resources are available to plug the injection well and provide postinjection care at the point in time that the fi rst CO2 is injected. EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility to assist owners or operators in evaluating the requirements of §146.85 and to assist Directors in evaluating financ ial responsibility demons trations. The guidance describes the types of financial mechanisms th at operators may choose to use when evaluating the financial responsibility requirements for GS wells and it will also incl ude a section on how to estimate costs to support accurate financial resp onsibility demonstrations. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/g roundwater/uic/wells_s equestration.cfm.

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects

10USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23134 Letter Lines: 174 to 176

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

Comment: participants. Accordingly, TPA recommends that EPA provide that the postinjection site care period be establishe d on a case-by-case basis as a part of the permitting process.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there will be circumst ances 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 GS ru le offers owners or operators flexibility regard ing the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injecti on period based on site-specific da ta, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and prot ective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public

comments. 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 is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under §146.92 a nd §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monito ring wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-inject ion site care time frame; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and pe rform site closure act ivities. The guidance will be available at http://www.epa .gov/safewater/wells_s equestration.html.

11Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23135 Letter Lines: 178 to 186

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90)

Comment: 3. One-size-fits-all testing and monito ring requirements should not be established. The required leve l of testing and monitoring should be determined on a site-by-site basis. Imposition of an across-the-board requirement would be inappropriate given the va riations in geologic fo rmations, and such a requirement would inhibit the development and use of geologic sequestration with little or no corresponding environmental be nefit in certain cases. Regulatory bodies and operators should be free to tailor monitoring techniques to the specific conditions at each particular site, upon a determination that the techniques would produce reliable data. In addition. there should be no blanket

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters and believ es that flexibility is important in developing and implementing a monitoring plan that is appropriately tailored for a specific GS site. The purpose of the requirement at §146.90 to develop site-specific testing and monitoring plans is to ensure that the monitoring performe d at a site is appropria te for site operational conditions and the geologic setting. EPA believes th at this is the best approach for addressing potential risks at GS sites. These flexible provisions in the monitoring requirements for Class VI wells enable the owner or operator to tailor monitoring programs to the specific needs of each project in consultation with the Director.

The final regulation provides for flexibility in: 1) methodologies used to co llect these data, 2) the spatial resolution at which the data should be co llected, and 3) how often the data should be collected. The number and placement of monitoring wells will be based on site-specific information such as the calculated AoR, inject ion rate and volume, site geology, baseline data, and the presence of artificial penetrations within the AoR. In some instances, there may be a limited number of options for complying with EPA's minimum requirements. For example, monitoring for geochemical changes will require use of monitoring wells and collection of groundwater samples for chemical analysis. Many options currently exis t for complying with other requirements, such as tracking the positio n of the plume and pressure front within the injection zone.

Flexibility is also provided re garding how to monitor for the sp ecific data required by the final rule. The testing and monitoring plan is develope d by the owner or operato r in consultation with the Director and is designed to ensure that a detailed, Director-approved document describing how monitoring will be conducted during the lifetime of the project exists. EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and reco mmended approaches for implem enting a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testin g of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during ope ration, groundwater quali ty monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface ai r monitoring, which may be required by the UIC

12Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23136 Letter Lines: 186 to 193

Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential im pact on human health or ecosystems (seeking comment)

Comment: techniques would produce reliable data. In addition. there should be no blanket requirement for the use of tracers to detect leaks. Such a requirement would send an erroneous signal to the public con cerning the risks involved in geologic sequestration. Geologic sequestration will not develop as a helpful tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if the wrong signals are sent to the public. The utility of tracers for monitoring carbon dioxide leaks is uncertain in any event, and the use of tracers may create he alth or safety issues for workers and for the public.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the use of tracers shoul d not be required at all GS sites, but should be available as an option. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, the Director has discretion to require their us e if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director.

Comments related to whether the use of tracers will signal to the public that GS is unsafe are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, EP A disagrees that the use of tracers, if needed, would signal to the public that GS is unsafe. EP A believes that tracers can be useful tools for monitoring, plume tracking, and verification at GS sites and may help improve public confidence in certain projects. EPA believes that providing the public with important information about the project, including how tracers would be an integral part of the site monitoring plan, will be a key part of improving public acceptance of specific projects and GS technology in general.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23137 Letter Lines: 195 to 201

Comment Code: 4200 2.4.2 Down-hole shut-off valves in GS wells (seeking comment)

Comment: 4. Down-hole automatic shut-off devices should not be re quired in all cases. TPA disagrees with the proposed requi rement of down-hol e automatic shutoff devices. This requirement is not im posed upon wells in other classes and there is no reason why such a requiremen t should be placed, on an across-theboard basis, upon Class VI wells. Such a requirement would impose an unnecessary expense in many cases. At most, such a re quirement should only be imposed on a site-specific, case-by-case basis.

Individual Response: After evaluating the risks and benefi ts of down-hole shut-off systems and

13considering additional research, EPA will not re quire automatic down-hole shut-off devices for onshore Class VI wells since it is not necessary in all cases to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. Instead, the final rule, at §146.88(e)(2 ), requires that owne rs or operators of

onshore Class VI wells install automatic surface shut-off devices. The rule affords Director's

discretion to mandate automatic down-hole shut -off devices in onshore situations that may warrant their use. However, the Agency believ es that offshore Class VI wells present unique construction and operational conditi ons, including isolation from shorelines and the need to construct wells through the water column and the subsurface, which may delay response time in

the event of well difficulties. Th e rule requires, at §146.88(e)(3), that owners or operators of

offshore wells within State territorial waters install automatic down-hole shut-off systems. EPA believes that these requirements at §146.88(e) ensure that proper precautions are taken to prevent

subsurface fluid movement and ensure protection of USDWs.

EPA clarifies that down-hole shut-off devices are cu rrently used in situa tions where loss of well integrity could result in damage to the well or harm to humans (e.g., ne ar high-density population areas, or in onshore acid gas inj ection; IEA, 2003). EPA has identi fied examples of documented logging techniques, including ultr asonic and temperature logs, th at can be performed with an automatic down-hole device emplaced (Julian et al., 2007; Somaschini et al., 2009). They are also used in high pressure, high temperature onshore wells and in permafrost areas.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23138 Letter Lines: 203 to 220

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: 5. The carbon dioxide stream is a co mmodity not a waste and should be regulated as such. EPA should make clear that carbon dioxide injectate is not being categorized or regulated as a wa ste or a pollutant, but rather as a commodity. The sequestered carbon dioxide is expected to genera te a credit in a future carbon credit scheme. At that point, the act of sequestering the carbon dioxide will generate an emission credit th at can be sold in the open market. Accordingly, TPA urges EPA to remain neutral at this point in time in characterizing the carbon dioxide stream as a waste or a pollut ant in any of its regulatory programs. Those kinds of labels would saddle this program with the liability schemes imposed by RCRA or CERCLA and would be severely detrimental to the development and use of geologic se questration technology. It is highly unlikely that industry will commit the s ubstantial capital re quired for geologic sequestration projects unless and until th e potential for liability is clearly

defined and understood. Such financial comm itment is unlikely to be made if participants run the risk of incurring open-ended and ruinous liability under RCRA and CERCLA. In this regard, Class VI permits should be written as broadly as possible, so as to maximize protecti ons that may be provided by federally permitted release exemptions.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule, be ing issued only under the SDWA, does not affect the status of, or entities’ potent ial obligations for managing, or liability for

14management of, CO2 under RCRA or CERCLA. While the Class I requirements formed the basis of many of the specific requirements for GS wells, EPA clarifies that the GS rule is tailored to the unique nature of GS. EPA based many of the GS requirements on the Class I regulations because, like Class VI wells, Class I wells are typically deep and involve waste streams that, if not properly managed, can harm the well and lead to contamination.

In addition, issues related to car bon crediting are outside the scope of the GS rule. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23139 Letter Lines: 222 to 245

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO 2; purity standards for CO2

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

Comment: 6. Incidental waste streams in the car bon dioxide stream should not cause

the stream to be characterized as a hazardous waste or hazardous substance. As EPA has pointed out, the carbon dioxide str eam may have pollutants in it that

could cause the waste stream to be classi fied as a hazardous waste. For example. the carbon dioxide stream captured from a power plant may include emissions of mercury, a hazardous substance. A carbon dioxide stream captured from a gas processing plant may have emissions of n itrous oxides or hydrogen sulfides. The incidental presence of these waste stream s in a carbon dioxide stream should not

cause the entire carbon dioxide stream to be classified as a hazardous waste or a waste. The proposed regulations do not specify content or constituent concentration requirements. They merely state that "[t]his subpart does not apply to any carbon dioxide stream that meets the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261." Proposed § 146.81( d). TPA urges EPA to establish a content percentage or constituent concentration of a pollutant in the carbon

dioxide stream before the stream is decl ared a hazardous waste, or some other methodology that would promote the goals of this program without compromising environmental protection. The cost of removing the offending constituents or pollutants could defeat the economic vi ability of the carbon sequestration project, generate additional detrimen tal air emissions through the removal process and in the end be counter-produc tive as the best longterm disposal option for the pollutant may be to sequester it in a deep well. In short, such specifications might restrict the amount or kinds of greenhouse gas fluids that could be stored through ge ologic sequestration technol ogy and may defeat the program in its entirety.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that many CO2 str eams may be relatively pure, and

research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates are based on limited in formation, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the va rious types of CO2 streams. The concentrations

of minor and trace elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies.

15The GS rule does not set generic purity standa rds for CO2 injectate streams (e.g., a percent CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresses the quality and quantity of impurities by requiring owners or operators to submit information on the sour ce of the CO2 and its physical and chemical properties. Specifically, the GS rule requires the owner or operator to subm it data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatib ility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confini ng zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This info rmation can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation

minerals.

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 possible 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. Finally, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23140 Letter Lines: 247 to 262

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones (seeking comment)

Comment: 7. Characterization of a secondary contai nment zone should not be left to the discretion of the Director. The propos ed regulations provide that at the Director's discretion, he or she shall require owners or operators of Class VI wells to identify and charact erize secondary containment or confinement zones. Rather than stating this provision as a requirement to be imposed upon an applicant at the discretion of the Director, TPA suggests that EPA establish this provision as an additi onal demonstration to be made by an applicant, in the event that a secondary confin ement zone is present at th e site. The existence of a secondary confining zone would make the site more attractive for permitting and should be treated as an incentive to make the permitting process progress more smoothly and swiftly. A secondary cont ainment zone is certainly not needed to ensure safe geologic seque stration. A single containmen t zone is all that is needed. Accordingly, if a secondary cont ainment zone does exist at the site, then the applicant should be provided the opportunity to demonstrate that it does exist and to receive preferential treat ment in the permitting process as a

16result.

Individual Response: EPA retains the requirement to iden tify additional containment/confining zones, if required by the Di rector, as proposed (e.g., §146.83(b)). The Agency's decision is supported by commenters representing states, wate r associations, and an electric utility who assert that these requirements (at §146.83(b)) pr omote a flexible, risk-based, site-specific approach to characterizing and perm itting a site for GS projects.

EPA disagrees that such sites warrant "preferen tial treatment." Rather, th e Agency expects that

the extensive site characterization data collected at each site will be eval uated in the context of that site (and USDW protecti on) to support a determination re garding where a permit should be issued. The Agency believes that providing the Director discretion will allow consideration of a range of sites for GS, based on site-specifi c conditions and ensure USDW protection. EPA believes that requiring appropriate site charac terization by the owner or operator (under §146.82) and providing an appropriate degree of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic data will afford the greatest protection of USDWs from endangerment.

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendations regard ing characterizing the region al geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing th e necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confin ing zone. EPA expects that this guidance will assist permit writers in making an objective deci sion about requiring additional confining layers. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23141 Letter Lines: 264 to 279

Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment)

Comment: 8. Imposition of corrosion-resistant ma terials is too prescriptive. Requirements concerning use of particularmaterials should be imposed on a caseby-case basis. For example, the regulations should not require that all projects use corrosion-resistant materials, because isolation and corrosion prevention is the result of the proper placem ent of cement, rather than the type of cement used. Any requirement related to the use of corrosion-resistan t materials should be made on a site-by-site basis. Impo sition of inflexible, across-the-board materials requirements would unduly hinde r development and use of geologic sequestration technology, given that th e use of conventiona l materials will adequately ensure project integrity in many cases.

9. Casing material requirements are si milarly prescriptive. Requirements concerning use of particul ar casing materials should be based on the planned

17operating life of the injection program, ra ther than the life of the storage program. Long-term exposure of the casing materials, during storage, can be dealt with through plugging if necessary.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that corrosion-resistant cement is not specifically required in a Class VI injection well. Rather, as stated in §146.86(b)(1), casings and cement used must have sufficient strength and be designed for th e life of the sequestra tion project. Further,

materials must meet standards listed in the rule and be compatible with fluids with which the materials may be expected to come into contact. Therefore, some well materials may need to be acid-resistant and some may not if they do not co me in contact with the CO2 stream or other

corrosive fluids and if approved by the Director.

EPA disagrees that the casing, cement or other materials should only be designed for the period of the injection process, rather than the life of the sequestration proj ect. GS projects are anticipated to have long life span s in comparison to other types of deep injection wells. Not only

must Class VI wells be able to function safely and properly over the lifespan of th e GS project, but they must be constructed such that US DWs remain protected after well plugging. The requirements at §146.86 will ensure that the well can maintain integrity throughout the proposed life span of the project, including after the in jection well is plugged and through post-injection site care period and beyond. While the risk profile of a GS site will decrease following cessation of injection, EPA believes that Class VI wells must be desi gned to protect USDWs from endangerment for the life of the project. Furthermore, rigorous casing and cementing help ensure

that the Class VI well will not se rve as a conduit for movement of fluids associated with future injection operations.

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23142 Letter Lines: 281 to 284

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

USDW

Comment: 10. Requiring that the injec tion zone be below the lowe rmost USDW is onerous and unjustified. TPA disagrees with the proposal that geologic sequestration be limited in all cases to an injection zone that occurs below the lowermost underground source of drinking water ("US DW"). Rather, a performance-based

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.

18EPA 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 Agency 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 quantities to supply drinking water needs.

For additional information on the waiver approa ch, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the No tice of Data Availability and Request for

Comment.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23143 Letter Lines: 284 to 300

Comment Code: 4410 2.4.4.3.1 Comments in favor of allowing injection above/between

USDWs in certain circumstances

Comment: underground source of drinking water ("US DW"). Rather, a performance-based approach should be taken, in which the focu s is on the containment qualities of the injection interval and on the overall geological environment, not simply on

whether the reservoir is above or below th e lowermost USDWs. TP A would note that carbon dioxide has been injected above th e lowermost USDWs for decades without

incident in connection with enhanced o il and gas recovery efforts in Texas. Imposition of an inflexible requirement that injection only occur below the lowermost USDW would unduly hinder the use of geologic sequestration technology, and it would be particularly inappropriate in instances where an injection site

was situated above a USDW but there was a great distance betw een the injection

site and the USDW and the characteristi cs of the intervening space prevented migration between the site and the USDW. EPA's focus should be on the particular physical characteristics that are pres ented, including distance and physical characteristics of the intervening space su ch as discussed above, as well as the containment qualities of the injection site being proposed. A site-specific approach would increase the use and t hus the effectiveness of geologic sequestration technology.

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.

The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in

19conjunction with the permit application submission) to demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a

non-USDW that is above or be tween USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. The requirements are designed to ensure that the owner or opera tor, the Director, and the Regional Administrator consid er, on a site specific basis, the implications, benefits, and challenges associated with GS and ensuring water availability and USDW protection.

It establishes: 1) requirements specifying informa tion that owners or operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PW SS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for Director-Regiona l Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additiona l requirements that apply to owne rs or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the in jection depth requirements to en sure USDW protection above and below the injection zone. EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC program Di rectors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS.

For additional information on the waiver approa ch, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the No tice of Data Availability and Request for

Comment.

Letter ID: 0143 Comment ID: 23144 Letter Lines: 302 to 312

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

Comment Code: 2066 1.5.3.3 Grandfathering construction of Class V wells (seeking comment)

Comment: 11. Grandfathering of well construction standards for Class II and Class V wells should be provided without condition. EPA proposes to grandfather the well

construction standards for a Class II and a Class V well that is converted to a Class VI well and requests comments on how this proposal may affect compliance with the proposed well cons truction standards for Cla ss VI wells. TPA believes

that the construction standards for an existing Class II or V well that is

converted to a Class VI well should be accepted by EPA as having met the Class VI well construction requirements. Th e meaning of "grandfathering" an environmental requirement is just that: the requirements in place at the time continue to apply. If this were not the case, a viable sequest ration project may not occur as development of a ne w well may be cost prohibitive.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class II a nd 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 grandf athered per §146.81(c), pr ovided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure prot ection 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

20volumes 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: 0143 Comment ID: 23145 Letter Lines: 314 to 320

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: 12. The issue of long term liability should be addressed by legislation. TPA recognizes that identificati on of long term liability is beyond this rulemaking. However, TPA believes it is important to note that clarific ation of which parties would be responsible for unintende d migration or similar problems after a well had been closed is vitally importa nt to the long term success of this program. Such an issue should be addressed by legislation at eith er the state or

federal level.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that addres sing long term liability by legislation is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Furthermore, as described above, once an owner or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to require ments at §146.93, the owner or opera tor will generally no longer be subject to enforcement fo r regulatory noncompliance.

EPA does not have authority to tr ansfer SDWA or other legal liab ility 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.

21