2.10

– 2.14

– Responses to Public Comments on Involving the Public, Class VI Primacy,
Duration of Class VI Permits, Emergency and Remedial Response, and Other
Administrative Requirements

This file contains responsesto public comments on involving the public, class VI primacy,
duration of Class VI permits, and emergency and remedial response (comment codes

5500

- 5900).This section includes comments on the adequacy of the existing public
participation requirements and the need for additional participation requirements,
partial primacy for UIC regulations, and other administrative requirements

.

Thetable below presents all of the EPA

-assigned comment codes that are included in

this section of the comment and response summary. Use the bookmarks in the PDF to move among the comment codes

.

Topics included in this summary and associated comment codes

2.10 Comments on Involving the Public in Permitting Decisions 5500
2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements (Part 25 and Part 124)

for GS 5520

2.10.2 Need for additional public participation requirements/ use of new information
technology 5540

2.10.3 Enhancing the public participation process 5560

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

2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells 5610

2.12 Comments on the proposed duration of Class VI permits 5700

2.13 Comments on emergency and remedial response (40 CFR 146.94) 5800

2.14 Other administrative requirements under 40 CFR 144 5900

Every comment on these topic areas andthe associated response is included in this
summary; there is some repetition where multiple commenters made the same

comment.

Responses to letters from individual commenters or organizations are also available in

the rulemaking docket.Comment Code: 5500 2.1 Comments on Involving the Public in Permitting Decisions



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23093

Comment: The authority should also prescribe appropriate public involvement in siting decisions, and a process for review. They should however not allow extensive obstruction of technically decided decisions, or the program will have limited adoption and support.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin communicating with the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

Commenter Name:James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization:Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22652

Comment: Stakeholder Input and the Periodicity of this Involvement

o Page 43520. The draft rule states "During this 50 year period, the owner or operator would be required to submit periodic reports." What’s the periodicity of these reports? A layperson would likely see this as a more meaningful step to regulate GS if the periodicity was annually as opposed to once every 15 years. I do not intend to imply that annual reporting is the appropriate periodicity but by not specifying the interval the value of this as a regulatory tool or a means of building public trust in nascent GS technologies is largely gutted.

o Page 43520. The draft rule seems to imply that the draft site closure plan would be made publically available. That is fine and appropriate, but the rule does not address what data will be made publically available when the GS project is being planned or during its operational phase. I do not see how the USEPA can be silent on this point.

o Pages 43522-43523 contain an explicit discussion of public involvement in GS projects. This passage says that a summary of this pre-construction public involvement activity would become part of the public record. So the rule says that something at the very earliest stages of a GS project and something at the very end are public documents, but it is not clear what data during the 30-50year operational life of the project are publically available.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final GS rule does not specify a frequency for monitoring or reporting during the post-injection period. However, the post-injection site care and site closure plan submitted as part of the permit application must specify monitoring and reporting frequencies (See §146.93(a)(2)), and the Director must approve the plan. Additionally, the owner or operator must continue monitoring as specified in the post-injection site care and site closure plan for 50 years following the cessation of injection, unless demonstrated otherwise or for the duration of the alternative timeframe approved by the Director pursuant to requirements in §146.93(c).

In addition to the public process during the permitting phase, EPA expects that permitting authorities will maintain an administrative record for the project, which at the discretion of the permitting authority might be available online and at the authority's office. This record should consist of the application materials and draft and final permits, along with public comments received on the draft permit as required under 40 CFR Part 124. Please note all state programs for purposes of Class VI wells must be at least as stringent as the federal minimum requirements under the UIC program, which includes permitting requirements under 40 CFR 145.11. EPA anticipates that permitting authorities will maintain monitoring and operational data submitted by owners and operators; the public could request this information from the permitting authority. Where EPA is the permitting authority, such data could be requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act. EPA will also encourage an ongoing relationship between the permitting authority and the owner or operator, e.g., at the time of periodic reevaluation of the AoR and corrective action plan required at §146.84(e), as well as when any revisions are made to the testing and monitoring plan and financial responsibility demonstrations based on the AoR reevaluation.

EPA notes that administrative procedure laws vary by state. States will describe their public participation activities in their primacy applications and must be at least as stringent as those provided under Parts 145 and 146.

EPA recognizes that the AoR reevaluation process may generate significant levels of public interest. EPA added text to §144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. This would invoke the public notification procedures of 40 CFR Part 124. EPA clarifies that minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41 do not require public notification.

Commenter Name:James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization:Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22654 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4700 2.7 Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 146.91)

Comment: Page 43528. The proposed Class VI rule states "The information gathered as a result of this proposed rule" allows the Agency to verify throughout the life of the injection project that UIC protective requirements are in place and that USDWs are protected. At the end of the day, this is indeed the figure of merit. Does this rule allow for sufficient exchange of information between the owners/operators of GS projects and regulators and stakeholders (?). This reviewer is not convinced that this metric is satisfied by the proposed rule.Response: EPA agrees that interaction between the owner or operator and the Director is an important part of ensuring that GS projects are operated in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the site-specific GS project plans which will be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project.

EPA encourages (but does not require) operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the GS project development process as possible. Involving the public in the permitting process is an important aspect of both UIC Program requirements and EPA's overall mission. The public will also have the opportunity to submit written comments and, in many cases, attend hearings on proposed GS projects during formal public comment periods. Although permit application information will not be made available as it is submitted, permitting authorities must follow the public participation requirements for UIC permits specified in 40 CFR Part 124 which require that owners or operators publish a public notice that includes information about where interested parties can obtain copies of the draft permit and application in addition to requesting a public hearing.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site. EPA also notes that should changes to these plans require a permit modification under §144.39, the public must be notified according to the public comment procedures under 40 CFR 124.

In addition, EPA is evaluating options for a centralized data system through which the public could have access to public information on a GS project. EPA will also provide access to any required plan to the public upon request. Providing the public with information throughout the GS project will help clear up and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23370

Comment: Public Participation -- Pg. 44

APPA agrees that public participation is crucial to the success of any individual CO2 GS project and of the UIC Program as a whole.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance laterin the permitting effort.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23428

Comment: Public Participation

APPA agrees that public participation is crucial to the success of any individual CO2 GS project and of the UIC Program as a whole. Id. at 43523. We urge EPA to structure the Final Rule’s public participation requirements to maximize impact without unnecessarily slowing down the application process. To this end APPA believes that public participation would prove most useful after an application has been deemed complete but before it has been approved. APPA is inclined to believe that the states will set up public participation requirements consistent with their existing proposed new plant operations. APPA does not want the EPA UIC Class VI rulemaking to add new steps for permit review or hearings but offers no Federal pre-emption of existing state public participation requirements.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

EPA disagrees with commenters who claim that early public involvement may slow the application process. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

Commenter Name:James Rower Letter ID: 0173 Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23511

Comment: 14. Public Participation

USWAG agrees that public participation is crucial to the success of any individual CO2 GS project and of the UIC Program as a whole. Id. at 43523. We urge EPA to structure the Final Rule's public participation requirements to maximize impact without unnecessarily slowing down the application process. To this end, the Final Rule should not require public participation too early in the permit process; USWAG believes that public participation would prove most useful after an application has been deemed complete but before it has been approved.Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort. EPA disagrees with commenters who claim that early public involvement may slow the application process. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23557

Comment: EEI shares the Agency‘s view that accurate public perception and increased understanding of CCS technology are critical to its success at the commercial level. To that end, EEI supports the development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropriate public input on projects. However, EEI is concerned that imposition of public participation provisions like those currently applicable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects. EEI encourages the Agency to craft provisions that support decision-making based upon sound science and do not unduly hamper siting decisions.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

EPA clarifies that RCRA public participation provisions do not apply to Class VI permits.

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21235

Comment: I believe that attempts to limit public information and public awareness of the UIC technologies and the state of the monitoring activities -- out ofconsideration for them for unduly raised concerns or disingenuous. The public, if it is safe, then -- is safe, full public disclosure is essential for

confidence.

Public notices to residents in the areas of review and residents adjacent to areas of review should include notifications of the initial wells and subsequent well injections for the lifetime of the emission source or the capacity of the AoR. Simply allowing the permit on a one-time basis is not adequate. The public has the right to know of the future plans, the right-of-ways, and the injection points that will be used over the entirety of the process.

Public hearings should be required and not be left to the discretion of the director. This makes an uneven application of the law, and it should be a mandatory requirement for all applications.

The public should be notified early on in the process, during site evaluation and site selection processes. Again, public information and knowledge is essential to public confidence. Failure to disclose these elements while the process is undergoing will raise more concerns at the end of the day.

Any application for UIC permits for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide should be required to estimate the number of injection sites from AoR, area of review. This is legal and clear at this point over the lifetime of emission of the power plant how many injection wells will be needed. In some states it depends on the geological substrata of, to what that capacity may be.

Well, to come into a community and just place one well for one permit and then all of a sudden more permits are being issued based on initial site review,there are a lot of issues that are raised with that eminent domain, right-ofway. The industry wants to put a straight line pipeline to its next injection well site, but that's going to cost public access, public right-of-way, private property that needs to be fully disclosed and mapped out prior, before utilization of that field for all of its injection well sites and capacities.

This is critical because local communities have long range local zoning ordinances and planning process that will extend throughout the lifetime of a, of a well or an area to be used for well site. And so these kinds, this kind of notification and long-term notification of potential well types is essentially to local communities to adequately plan and provide health and safety for the

welfare of their residents.

Property owners should be required to disclose UIC sites on or adjacent properties that are being sold in the AoR. Covenants for the land regarding UIC sites should be required. Public disclosure of UIC sites nearby, near, on, or adjacent to properties should be disclosed to sellers. If it's a safe process, again, this is part of the public notification.

Mapping a potential AoR well site leakage it should be disclosed and noticed as part of any public hearing process. For example, low- lying areas next to a well site should be mapped out to where the first one hundred thousand tons of CO2could escape via well heads. Where does that settle at? It's heavier than air, it'll accumulate in low-lying areas, and I believe that the public, the public needs to be notified, and a worse case scenario, mapping out low-lying areas of the CO2. And again, this should be part of the public disclosure for any transfer of land, or selling of land in that community?

And as an example, I would say that a map that would be adequate for public health and welfare of a local community, if there was a leak at the wellheads, where the first hundred thousand tons of CO2, where would it funnel at, where would that be rolled or displace oxygen at, and map out those low-lying areas.

And then a concentric circle where the second one hundred thousand tons of CO2 that escape from a well, where would that settle in and apply, and map out where it will go. Because those people in those areas potentially could be impacted. And it's just not people, we're talking of other resources.

I think that a metric that is easily discernible to the public needs to be created and utilized in this process. In other words, once you have a well closure safe, or you can, during the monitoring process, that I want to know as a public citizen, what if a one inch penetration of a cap stone occurs during the injection process or during the closure process. How much CO2 per day, per annum can I expect? I would like to say not annum, but per day, per week, by month, can I expect from a one inch penetration of a cap stone in geologically sequestered area review.

How, and I want to know, well, what about a two inch penetration? How much CO2 is likely to escape? What about a three inch penetration?

This is a metric that the public likely needs to understand the potential. There could be an accidental penetration of the cap stone. There are existing wells that I know, I'm personally aware of in Madison County, Michigan where I have resided and where my tribe is located, where there are simply pools of mud. And we already have sulfide gases that are turning, up to 40,000 parts per million, way above any standard by the EPA. But these are controlled by simply putting them in the mud. These are potential escape routes for CO2, again, they needed to be mapped out as the proposals indicate.

But, you know, I want to know what the failure, or the opening up of one of these penetrations means by communicating in terms of the rate of CO2 emissions that are becoming stagnant. And again, the mapping out of where the CO2 will accumulate in low lying areas.

The public should be made aware of and have an opportunity to participate in any of the emergency or contingency planning based on catastrophic leaks of a well site. If this happens there needs to be clear steps taken, and coordination of the local community to outline a contingency plan or notification.

Response: EPA encourages GS well owners or operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the GS project development process as possible. Involving the public in the permitting process is an important aspect of both UIC Programrequirements and EPA's overall mission. The public will also have the opportunity to submit written comments and, in many cases, attend hearings on proposed GS projects during formal public comment periods. Although permit application information will not be made available to the public as it is submitted to the Director, permitting authorities must follow the public participation requirements for UIC permits specified in 40 CFR Part 124, which require that owners or operators publish a public notice that includes information about where interested parties can obtain copies of the draft permit and application.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the project.

In response to the comment that public notice should be required for every well, EPA notes that the final rule requires a permit application, and therefore public notice, for every Class VI well. Area permits are not an option for Class VI wells. EPA disagrees that public hearings should be mandatory for all GS permits, in order to account for the possibility that, if the public does not express an interest in a hearing, holding one would not be useful. 40 CFR 124.12 provides the Director with the discretion to hold public hearings if there is a significant degree of interest in a draft permit. EPA expects that public hearings will be requested and held for many GS projects, due to the expected level of public interest in GS projects. EPA notes that the final rule requires the owner or operator, upon site closure, to add a notation to the deed for the facility property noting that geologic sequestration took place. See §146.93(g). It does not require any notification to adjacent property owners, however.

EPA notes that the owners or operators must develop an emergency and remedial response plan for responding to USDW endangerment under §146.94. However, EPA does not have authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to require owners or operators to develop plans for carbon dioxide that leaks to the surface outside the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA also does not have authority to address eminent domain and rights-of-way, which may vary from state to state.

Commenter Name: Leslie Glustrome Letter ID: 0527

Comment ID: 21415

Comment: absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make sure that all data is completely transparent, fully available to the public and all assumptions are identified clearly in plain English when you actually decipher some of the scientific papers that are being used to prepare the models, you realize that the assumptions assume that it is all going to be fine. Well if you assume it is part of the model, those will be fine. That is not -- does not take a lot of brains, but it is hard to dig down and find those assumptions, so I think that is all. Thank you very much.

Response: EPA agrees that all information presented to the public must be clear, understandable, and available. 40 CFR 124.10 requires EPA to provide public notice when a draft permit is prepared. Additionally, stakeholders may request copies of the draft permit and the permit application during the draft permit comment period; the application includes data on the geology of the injection and confining zones which are likely to be used as inputs for modeling. However, it is likely thatinformation submitted in support of a permit in its original form (e.g., modeling inputs) may be extremely technical and not easily understood by a lay audience. Permitting authorities are required produce a fact sheet that summarizes relevant information for the public in a much more understandable format than the supporting data in a permit application. See §124.8. The fact sheet describes the draft permit conditions, procedures to determine the final decision on the permit, any procedures to request a hearing, and procedures that may be available for additional public participation in the final permitting decision. EPA will encourage permitting authorities and operators to present all modeling data to the public.

Please note that EPA is not required under §124.10 to provide public notice of a request for permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is denied. Furthermore, public notices may describe more than one permit action.

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements (Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21596

Comment: III. Public Acceptance

Public Participation: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation in programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part

124.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

Commenter Name: Skiles Boyd Letter ID: 0160 Commenter Organization: DTE Energy Comment ID: 21278

Comment: PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS

In conjunction with the issuance of the injection permit for the MRCSP project, EPA Region V staff required a public information meeting in lieu of a formal public hearing. The information meeting was coordinated by the MRCSP and included a briefing on the injection demonstration and anticipated results. Presentations were conducted by the project hosts, technical experts and academia. The public (which consisted of neighbors surrounding the project andseveral community advocates) was provided an opportunity to raise questions and concerns and learn about carbon sequestration. In general, the meeting was a success with the public reassured of the safety of the demonstration and that they were given an opportunity to voice their concerns. The point to be made here is that outreach is crucial to the successful deployment of CCS. DTE Energy supports development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropriate public input on projects. The preamble proposes to apply the public participation provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 25 and 124 to GS projects and seeks comments on the appropriateness and completeness of those provisions for this task. As elaborated by EEI: "...public participation provisions currently existing under the UIC program are appropriately applied to GS projects as well. However, Part 124 includes provisions for public participation that are unique to other programs, including RCRA. Imposition of public participation provisions like those currently applicable under RCRA is unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects ..."

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are important and appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete. Furthermore, the Agency clarifies that the provisions of 40 CFR 124 that apply to RCRA permits do not apply to Class VI UIC permits.

In response to comments regarding the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 25 and 124 applicable under RCRA, EPA clarifies that only the public participation requirements pertaining to the UIC program apply to Class VI wells.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24263

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523 EPA Preamble Question: 46. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

API Response: The current provisions in Parts 25 and 124 are sufficient to inform the public. Additional requirements should not be included.

Public participation should be consistent across programs. If EPA believes the public participation requirements should be expanded, it should be done in a holistic manner across programs.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early publicinvolvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project-specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

In response to the suggestion to apply additional public participation requirements to all injection well classes, EPA notes that this is beyond the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23602

Comment: H. Public Participation Provisions

The preamble seeks comment on what public participation provisions should be included for GS wells. EEI shares the Agency‘s view that accurate public perception and increased understanding of CCS technology are critical to its success at the commercial level. To that end, EEI supports the development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropriate public input on projects. The preamble proposes to apply the public participation provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 25 and 124 to GS projects and seeks comments on the appropriateness and completeness of those provisions for this task. EEI agrees that public participation provisions currently existing under the UIC program are appropriately applied to GS projects as well. However, Part 124 includes provisions for public participation that are unique to other programs, including RCRA.[FN11] Imposition of public participation provisions like those currently applicable under RCRA is unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects, as further explained below.

The general public participation requirements under the UIC program provide for operators to submit a permit application, complete with all information required by the regulations, and for a completeness review of the submitted information. The public comment period is generally commenced once the director has prepared a draft permit for the project. This is a rationale approach for GS projects. It allows the project operator and the Agency to make preliminary decisions, such as decisions related to siting, that are critical to the success of the project generally--and to the protection of USDW specifically--based upon appropriate geologic and technical considerations. It then allows the public to review the proposed project in light of all of the information that would be required for permit issuance, including, for example, in the GS context, specific information related to siting, construction, operation and monitoring.

However, the RCRA public participation provisions provide for, under certain circumstances, public meetings prior to submission of a permit application for a hazardous waste management unit. While the siting of RCRA-regulated facilities is obviously based on a number of concrete considerations, the siting of GS projects is dependent upon site geology to an extent that does not exist in the RCRA context. While EEI supports creation of provisions that allow for public input into projects, issues related to project siting are particularly susceptible to public response, which may be based upon improper perceptions of risk or desires that projects be sited elsewhere rather than upon true risksthat a project may pose to USDW. EEI encourages the Agency to craft provisions that support decision-making based upon sound science and do not unduly hamper siting decisions. In addition, as is echoed throughout these comments, imposing provisions on GS projects similar to those imposed upon hazardous waste in and of itself may feed into public misperceptions regarding the nature of projects and their safety as a general matter.

[FN11] See generally 40 C.F.R. Part 124, Subpart B.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

In response to comments regarding the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 25 and 124 applicable under RCRA, EPA clarifies that only the public participation requirements pertaining to the UIC program apply to Class VI wells.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23715

Comment: Category: Public Participation

EPA Request for Comment: EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

AWWA Response: 40 CFR 124 does not include a requirement for public notification when a request is made to modify, revoke and/or reissue an operating permit for a geologic sequestration project. It also does not provide for mandatory public hearings, as the regulations states that it is up to the discretion of the Director unless a hearing is specifically requested by a stakeholder. AWWA disagrees the omission of with these requirements and recommends that both of these activities be recognized as mandatory during the permit development, review, and approval processes for geologic sequestration projects.

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements at 40 CFR Parts 25 and 124 are inadequate for GS projects. These public participation requirements have been effective for the other UIC well classes. EPA believes that these requirements can help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and address the public's concerns about the project. EPA notes that public notice is required when a draft permit is issued including when existing permits are modified (except for minor modifications). See §124.10(a) Public notice is also required when a permit is revoked or reissued. See §124.5(c)). Although public hearings are not mandatory, EPA expects that public hearings will be requested and necessary due to the expected level of public interest in GS projects. See §124.12. The commenter is correct that public notice is not required when a request formodification, revocation and reissuance and termination of a permit is made, however, EPA believes the public notice required when the draft is issued is appropriate for GS wells.

EPA recognizes that the AoR reevaluation process may generate significant levels of public interest. EPA added text to §144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. EPA notes that any permit modifications, except for minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, would invoke the public notification procedures of 40 CFR Part 124.

EPA disagrees that public hearings should be mandatory for all GS permits, in order to account for the possibility that, if the public does not express an interest in a hearing, holding one would not be useful. 40 CFR 124.12(a) requires the Director to hold public hearings if there is a significant degree of interest in a draft permit. EPA expects that public hearings will be requested and held for many GS projects, due to the expected level of public interest in GS projects.

Commenter Name: Bradley J. Field Letter ID: 0186 Commenter Organization: New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Div. of Mineral Resources Comment ID:

25216

Comment: RR. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology.

NYSDEC-DMN Response: All states have public notice laws and regulations that cover most regulatory and permitting functions. These laws and regulations would extend to the permitting and the regulation of GS that require public notice, hearings and due process to all affected parties. This should be adequate for public involvement purposes.

Response: EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects. If states have applicable public participation requirements, these would need to be met

as well.

EPA believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.EPA understands that public notice laws and regulations vary from state to state. EPA would like to clarify that in order for a state to receive primacy for Class VI GS wells their public notice requirements for permits must be at least as stringent as those required under Part 124. This requirement should provide a level uniformity between primacy states for purposes of providing public notice for GS wells.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24559

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 73 FR 43523 EPA Preamble Question: 46. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

CSC Response: The current provisions in Parts 25 and 124 are sufficient to inform the public. Additional requirements should not be included.

Public participation should be consistent across programs. If EPA believes the public participation requirements should be expanded, it should be done in a holistic manner across programs.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project-specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

In response to the suggestion to apply additional public participation requirements to all injection well classes, EPA notes that this is beyond the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0198 Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation Comment ID: 23954

Comment: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Ameren agrees that public participation is an important part of any CO2 GS project, but we urge EPA to require public participation after an application has been deemed complete but before it has been approved. We believe that the initial application will require some degree of interaction between an Agency and the permitee. Therefore, the best time to involve the public is when basic information needs have been fulfilled and there is a belief that the project can move proceed to permitting. The public can then voice their concerns or support based on the best available information on a project.

Ameren appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important rule and wouldwelcome the opportunity to work further with the Agency. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Encouraging public participation allows the permitting authority to understand public viewpoints, preferences, and concerns about the project, which might help avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects and forestall resistance later in the permitting effort.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21914

Comment: 23. Appropriate outreach techniques: The proposed rule’s 30-day public comment period for GS wells should be extended to at least 60 days because of the complexity of the issues. EPA should utilize modern media (electronic and

Response: EPA disagrees that a 60-day comment period should be required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at 40 CFR 124.10, which requires a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under 40 CFR 124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23196

Comment: Public Education

Montana-Dakota supports the development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropriate public input on projects, however, public participation provisions like those currently applicable under RCRA are unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects. Otherwise, Montana-Dakota believes that the rule provides a rational public participation approach for GS projects. The EPA is recommended, as it indicates its interest in the preamble, to provide education about this topic on their website regarding the benefits and true risks of CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees that informing the public on all aspects of GS projects is important. The Agency encourages permitting authorities and GS operators to provide the public, including residents near the project, with as much project-specific information as possible. This information mayinclude, but is not limited to, specific technologies used at the GS injection site, potential/new GS projects, and opportunities for public involvement. In addition to requiring public notice of all draft permits under §124.10(a)(1)(ii), stakeholders can request that they be notified about draft permits. In addition, §124.10(d) requires that the public notice state how stakeholders can obtain a copy of the permit application and draft permit. GS operators and permitting authorities are also encouraged to

make this information available on the Internet.

EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project-specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

In response to comments regarding the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 25 and 124 applicable under RCRA, EPA clarifies that only the public participation requirements pertaining to the UIC program apply to Class VI wells.

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23269

Comment: 46. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

Public participation requirements should be left to the regulating agency and not prescribed. Requirements could mirror the agency’s existing public notice and participation requirements.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages (but does not require) early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

EPA is not requiring the use of new information technologies. EPA encourages GS operators to use new information technologies whenever possible to keep the public informed of GS projects. The Agency believes that flexibility is important and does not want to limit use of public participation and notification technologies developed in the future.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22288

Comment: Public Water Systems should receive notice of permit applications and have theopportunity to participate in the permitting process

EPA should adopt the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 as suggested in the proposal. UIC Program Directors should also incorporate modern communication technologies (cable television, various internet tools) to increase the likelihood of effective public understanding and involvement. Engaging the public as soon as candidate

locations are identified will also increase the effectiveness of the effort. Given the focus of the rule on preventing harm to USDWs, UIC Program Directors should work with primacy agencies and departments with responsibility for implementing other aspects of SDWA to identify and notify Public Water Systems (PWSs) with a potential interest in the project. PWSs are an important stakeholder in the projects and should be the focus of targeted outreach at every stage of the permitting process. PWS representatives should be invited to serve on any Advisory Groups or other bodies set up during the lifetime of the project. We suggest that in Guidance to accompany this rulemaking, EPA urge owners and operators to establish on-going relationships with potentially impacted PWSs.

Response: EPA agrees and has adopted the existing public participation requirements at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124. EPA encourages but does not require operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the GS project development process as possible. Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process —can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site. The public will also have the opportunity to submit written comments and, in many cases, attend hearings if requested on proposed GS projects during formal public comment periods. Permitting authorities must follow the public participation requirements for UIC permits specified in 40 CFR Part 124.10 which generally requires that the public notice include information about where interested parties can obtain copies of the draft permit and application. In addition, the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits at 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x)(A) require notification "to any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located."

In addition, the final rule now requires notification of the director of the state public water supply supervision program (drinking water program) of the availability of the draft Class VI permit. See 40 CFR §124.10(c)(1)(xi). EPA anticipates that the Director of the drinking water program will inform public water systems located within the proposed area of review about the permit application.

EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourageGS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24825

Comment: EPA Notice Questions: 73 FR 43523

EPA Rule Issue: 46. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

GWPC CO2 Committee Response: Public participation requirements for Class VI well permitting should follow established requirements for UIC program permitting, which have proven successful. Any modifications to account for technological advances should be considered on a program-wide basis; there is nothing unique about GS in this respect.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA is not requiring the use of new information technologies, but encourages GS operators to use new information technologies whenever possible to keep the public informed of GS projects. EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

In response to the suggestion to apply additional public participation requirements to all injection well classes, EPA notes that this is beyond the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22828

Comment: IV. How Should UIC Program Directors Involve the Public In Permitting Decisions for GS Projects?

TT. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFRPart 25 and 40 CFRPart 124 and whether additional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology.

IOGCC Response: All states have public notice laws and regulations that cover most regulatory and permitting functions. These laws and regulations would extend to the permitting and the regulation of GS that require public notice, hearings and due process to all affected parties. This should be adequate for public involvement purposes.Response: EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects. If states have applicable public participation requirements, these would need to be met

as well.

EPA believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

EPA understands that public notice laws and regulations vary from state to state. EPA would like to clarify that in order for a state to receive primacy for Class VI GS wells their public notice requirements for permits must be at least as stringent as those required under 40 CFR Part 124. This requirement should provide a level uniformity between primacy states for purposes of providing public notice for GS wells.

Commenter Name: Becky English Letter ID: 0524 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21484 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: Modeling data should have been provided well before the beginning of this thirty day period, this comment period. Again, we need more time.

I also want to point out that a remediation plan should have been developed by now to deal with all possible contamination events in tandem with this particular process especially in view of EPA's, some of EPA's past failures to perform adequate risk monitoring and timely detection of remediation of contamination. Obviously, a remediation plan needs to be in place along with this particular proposal. Please provide us with that remediation plan and give the public time to comment on that as well.

EPA's management of carbon capture and sequestration operations should be absolutely transparent to the public and so today, I want to call for real time online postings and RSS feeds of all incidents no matter how minor to interested members of the public. EPA should be providing such reporting for all incidents already and not just for carbon sequestration leaks, but for really I think all incidents across your entire realm of responsibility. Again, with the transparency, the public needs to know what is going on a lot easier than it currently is for us to find things out.I am not a geologist or a mining engineer, but I think I have some common sense and as a U.S. citizen, I just must insist that EPA adopt a more comprehensive method for evaluating IGCC and carbon sequestration, carbon capture and sequestration in view of the now well known fact that carbon based fuels are roasting our atmosphere and rapidly reducing the viability of our planet.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final rule does not change the public notice requirements for injection well owners or operators already required under 40 CFR Part 124. However, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

EPA clarifies that the final GS rule requires each owner or operator to develop an emergency and remedial response plan prior to receiving a permit to inject carbon dioxide. See §146.94. This plan must be submitted to the Director along with the permit application and will be available for review during the public comment period for the draft permit. Each owner or operator will be responsible for any remediation associated with his or her well. The rule also requires each owner or operator to maintain financial responsibility for emergency and remedial response. See §146.85(a). EPA is developing guidance on both financial responsibility and emergency and remedial response plans.

EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name: Becky English Letter ID: 0524 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21485

Comment: EPA must develop its own models of the overall life cycle of carbon based fuel processes. A good model would give this lay person satisfying answers to some naive, but necessary questions.

Response: EPA clarifies that the overall life cycle of carbon based fuel processes (i.e., beyond the GS component) is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. However, when drafting proposed and final GS regulations, EPA estimated the costs associated with complying with the GS regulations; these are presented in the docket for this rulemaking. In the cost analysis (which is available in the docket), EPA anticipated that the impact on any individual household (as a result of CO2 GS requirements) is expected to be very minor. Please see the cost analysis for the GS rule for additional

information.Commenter Name: Becky English Letter ID: 0524 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21490

Comment: So in addition to asking for more time for public comment then, on behalf of Sierra Club's 22,000 members in the state of Colorado, thank you very much for your consideration. And now did you want to ask me anything?

Response: EPA disagrees that a comment period longer than 30 days should be required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations.

Comment Code: 5540 2.10.2 Need for additional public participation requirements/ use of new information technology (seeking comment)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Skiles Boyd Letter ID: 0160 Commenter Organization: DTE Energy Comment ID: 21279

Comment: DTE Energy supports the use of the Internet as an important source of information for the public, and echoes the Agency’s desire to utilize its capabilities to provide not only for public involvement, but also-perhaps more importantly as an initial matter-for public education on the benefits and true risks of CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24617

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523 EPA Rule Issue: 46. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whetheradditional requirements should be included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering information. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology. EPA Notice 43523.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: The current provisions in Parts 25 and 124 are sufficient to inform the public. The EPA should not require new technology for involving the public. As technological advancements happen at an ever increasing rate, current possibilities may be obsolete in a few years. In addition, there is still a vast population in the country that are not comfortable with the newer technologies. While in some areas of the country these may be beneficial, in other areas they may not provide enough public engagement (or more importantly not enough local engagement). The Class VI program should involve public participation but should not dictate the method in which that is performed.

Public participation should be consistent across programs. If EPA believes the public participation requirements should be expanded, it should be done in a holistic manner across programs.

Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

EPA is not requiring the use of new information technologies. EPA encourages GS operators to use new information technologies whenever possible to keep the public informed of GS projects. The Agency believes that flexibility is important and does not want to limit use of public participation and notification technologies developed in the future.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22176

Comment: Public Perception and Participation

Southern Company encourages EPA to take steps to ensure that the public fully understands that it is extremely unlikely that C02 GS projects will harm USDWs or human health. Effective dissemination of information regarding the limited risks posed by CO2 GS will lead to more informed and meaningful public participation in the permitting process. One step EPA can take to adequately inform the public is to tie the requirements of the Final Rule more closely to actual risks. The Class VI requirements are unprecedented in the UIC Program interms of their stringency; this will create unnecessary public apprehension without improving protection of USDWs.

Southern Company supports EPA's suggestion to modify existing public notice and comment requirements under the UIC Program to reflect the availability of new tools and technology, particularly web-based technology, for gathering and disseminating information. ¡d. at 43523. Use of internet-based tools can playa key role in connecting regulators, permit applicants, and the public through all stages of the comment period. Southern Company understands that the public must be kept informed and allowed an opportunity to provide input on potential Class VI projects; however, we urge EPA to establish requirements in the Final Rule that call for public notice after submission of a Class VI permit application, but not before that application has been deemed complete.

Response: EPA agrees that informing the public on all aspects of GS projects is important. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision-making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

The Agency encourages permitting authorities and GS operators to provide the public, including residents near the project, with as much project-specific information as possible. This information may include, but is not limited to, specific technologies used at the GS injection site, potential/new GS projects, and opportunities for public involvement. In addition to requiring public notice of all draft permits under §124.10(a)(1)(ii), stakeholders can request that they be notified about draft permits. In addition, §124.10(d) requires that the public notice state how stakeholders can obtain a copy of the permit application and draft permit. GS operators and permitting authorities are also encouraged to make this information available on the Internet.

EPA is not requiring the use of new information technologies. EPA encourages GS operators to use new information technologies whenever possible to keep the public informed of GS projects. The Agency believes that flexibility is important and does not want to limit use of public participation and notification technologies developed in the future.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21915

Comment: complexity of the issues. EPA should utilize modern media (electronic and digital communications, including, but not limited to web-pages and e-mails) to inform local citizens about GS site permitting.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS-related information on its website athttp://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23335

Comment: Opportunities for public participation in the proposed rule are not sufficient; the following changes are necessary:

1. The proposed rule has a 30-day public comment period on a proposed Class VI site-specific permit. This is too little too late. Thirty days is not sufficient time for the public to identify and raise concerns, and given the comment period falls at the end of a long negotiating process with the applicant, it is unlikely EPA could meaningfully address concerns at that point in the process. The public should be informed as soon as the EPA begins working with a permit applicant, and make the application materials publicly available and easily accessible. EPA and the permit applicant should hold public information sessions in the affected community and work to address public concerns throughout the process. The formal comment period should be extended to at least 90 days because the permit will contain a range of complicated issues that will likely require expert consultation.

Response: EPA agrees that that public participation and education are important parts of the UIC permitting process. EPA encourages (but does not require) operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the GS project development process as possible. Involving the public in the permitting process is an important aspect of both UIC Program requirements and EPA's overall mission. The public will also have the opportunity to submit written comments and, in many cases, attend hearings on proposed GS projects during formal public comment periods. Although permit application information will not be made available as it is submitted, permitting authorities must follow the public participation requirements for UIC permits specified in 40 CFR 124 section §124.10(d) which require that owners or operators publish a public notice that includes information about where interested parties can obtain copies of the draft permit and application. Generally, see 40 CFR Part 124.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site.

EPA disagrees that a 90-day comment period should be required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under 40 CFR 124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, orproject-specific considerations.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23336 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment)

Comment: 2. The proposed rule allows an applicant to use proprietary modeling software to submit predictions of plume behavior and movement, storage capacity, and injection rates. Use of proprietary software would hinder public participation because the public could not test applicant’s modeling predictions. To ensure transparency in the application process, publicly available modeling programs must be required.

Response: EPA expects that permitting authorities would make some information about the model available to the public, such as information about the model used and the parameters modeled. However, EPA does not expect that members of the public would evaluate the AoR delineation models themselves. The models and their inputs will, by necessity, entail an extensive amount of technical information that may not be easily understood by the public. EPA believes that it is the Director's responsibility, as a steward of public health and the environment, to review models, model inputs, and results and to determine whether the model is appropriate for predicting the AoR, and to distribute information that may be easily understood by the public (e.g., in the form of a fact sheet).

In response to comments about the need for additional public participation and the use of new information technology, EPA shares the commenter’s concern about the need to evaluate the inputs and assumptions used, but disagrees that the use of proprietary models should be disallowed. EPA intends to allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation, as long as GS well operators using a proprietary model clearly disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis.

EPA believes that operators should have the flexibility to select models with which they are familiar and that are most appropriate to the site conditions and available data types and amounts. EPA also recognizes that a standardized model for AoR delineations could be effective as long as the model accounts for the expected variations in site conditions, and adds that a state or regional UIC Director could select one standard model if it took site-specific variations into account. EPA has evaluated technical documents regarding several computational models that may be used for GS sites. Based on this review (as documented in the preamble to the proposed GS regulation and the background document "Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water"), EPA believes that several models meet the minimum requirements for models in the GS regulation. EPA adds that its Confidential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23337

Comment: 3. Each stage of the Club’s recommended permit process should incorporate application transparency, public hearings and a comment period. EPA should maintain a list of interested persons in each proposed/completed project and inform this list of every new application change, hearing, comment period,annual report, etc. These materials should be posted on the internet.

4. All remediation plans should be subject to notice and public comment.

Response: EPA agrees that informing the public on all aspects of GS projects is important. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

The Agency encourages permitting authorities and GS operators to provide the public, including residents near the project, with as much project-specific information as possible. This information may include, but is not limited to, specific technologies used at the GS injection site, potential/new GS projects, and opportunities for public involvement. In addition to requiring public notice of all draft permits under §124.10(a)(1)(ii), stakeholders can request that they be notified about draft permits. In addition, §124.10(d) requires that the public notice state how stakeholders can obtain a copy of the permit application and draft permit. GS operators and permitting authorities are also encouraged to make this information available on the Internet.

Regarding the comment that remediation plans should be included in the public participation requirements, EPA notes that emergency and remedial response plans are required under §146.94(a) as part of the permit application and copies of the permit application are available upon request during the draft permit public comment period. In addition, EPA added text to §144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on amendments to any of the project plans, among other situations. In such cases, the revised plan would be available for public comment.

EPA also encourages permitting authorities to notify and involve as many stakeholders as possible including drinking water organizations and local water utilities. 40 CFR §124.10(c)(1)(x)(A) requires notification "to any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located; and (B) to each State agency having any authority under State law with respect to the construction or operation of such facility."

Commenter Name: Greg Shubel Letter ID: 0284 Commenter Organization: Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc Comment ID: 25304

Comment: To further enhance public participation ITCMI ESD suggests that instead of mere encouragement, the permit applicants and permit writer be required to use the Internet and all other available tools to explain potential GS projects; describe the technology; and post information on the latest developments including schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for

involvement.

Response: EPA agrees that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. However, EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public. The Agency believes that flexibility is important and does not want to limit use of public participation and notification technologies developed in the future. EPA encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules forhearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name:Jonah Fruchter Letter ID: 0526 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21492

Comment:With that said, I would like to focus on transparency in regard to a future permit process. As I said earlier, I think that the public comment in deciding environmental regulation is important and I am glad the EPA is hosting comment periods. However, this is complicated stuff. If you would like comment from Coloradans in the future, for example, when companies have submitted permit applications, the public needs more than thirty days to digest and respond to the information submitted. We are not experts.

One way of helping with this to release this permit information as it is submitted so that just like the EPA, the public will have time to digest and develop an informed opinion, so that is in regard to future permitting that will

occur.

There is no point in holding a comment period if you do not give the public time

to inform themselves on the issues. The information itself also needs to be accessible to the public and comprehensive in order to create informed meaning filled public comment. Companies need to submit their information in an accessible manner such as using modeling software that is open access to the public. It does not require an expensive purchase to view the modeling data. Also the EPA should make it easy for anyone to gain access to information and comment on provisional permits and permanent permits. I do not see a point in having a comment for one and not the other. The public should be allowed to comment on all potential moves to develop a carbon sequestration program in

Colorado.

In closing, I would like to see the EPA make it easier not more difficult for Colorado to have a say in what happens in their own backyard. I hope you see many more comment periods in the future in regards to carbon sequestration technology and that we are allowed as the public to comment on how sequestration develops in the future. Thank you.

Response: EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations.

Because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GSprojects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

EPA would like to highlight that under §124.12 during the public comment period any interested person may request a public hearing in writing. Furthermore, the Director is required to hold a public hearing whenever he or she finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a draft permit under §124.12. EPA does not accept comments on final permits but does allow appeals of final permit decisions in certain cases under §124.19. In addition, the public would be able to participate in the public notice process in the event of modifications to the permit.

Comment Code: 5560 2.10.3 Enhancing the public participation process (seeking comment)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133 Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change Comment

ID: 21617

Comment: Public Acceptance

G. Public Participation

Recommendation G: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation in programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part

124.

Historical illustrations of community resistance to a range of proposed CCS projects would suggest that EPA policies which truncate the technical aspects of CO2 storage from the social and cultural values held by targeted localities carry a high degree of likelihood for public opposition. A 2008 Congressional Research Report, Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges cites public opposition as an important consideration in the successful formulation of national CCS policy in general, and local resistance as a key ingredient in the appropriate siting of geosequestration projects in particular. The Report warns:

Community opposition could complicate and delay each element of CCS implementation, potentially adding years to a national CCS deployment. Alternatively, community concerns could lead to a national patchwork of CCS projects constructed only in publicly acceptable geographies (or on public lands), creating inter-regional disparities and failing to meet congressional objectives (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34601_20080729.pdf at CRS-28).As a general rule, community concerns regarding CCS will fall into three categories: health and safety, economic, and environmental. In 2007, two studies involving residents of California's Central Valley expressed the following concerns about proposed geosquestration projects in their areas: a risk of carbon dioxide release and/or an increase in seismic activity [health and safety]; the lowering of property values and/or the raising of cost-of-living [economic]; the disruptive construction of a pipeline infrastructure for transporting the CO2 to the proposed site and/or a negative change to the character of the community [environmental] (see "Community" at CRS-16).

While it is unrealistic to expect that every contentious rationale raised by local residents can be overcome through trust-building strategies instituted by governments and businesses, it is well- recognized that a substantial number of legitimate grievances can be allayed 'up- front' with the structuring of participatory permitting processes. In cases where residents can be convinced that benefits to their community will outweigh anticipated costs, that the risks are clearly articulated and will be competently managed, sufficient community acceptance can be garnered in order to proceed. Establishing procedural mechanisms for public citizens to express genuine concerns relating to proposed geosequestration sites under the new EPA regulations can provide opportunities for solving disputes before they become intractable.

Response: EPA believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24264

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43522-23 EPA Preamble Question: 47. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as candidate locations are identified. EPA

Notice 43523.API Response: API does not believe that the public participation process should be extended to the site characterization stage of a GS project, particularly given that many sites might be characterized in the process of winnowing down the portfolio of potential sites.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. Generally, these regulations require the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Such information exchange can affect how the local community and surrounding communities perceive potential environmental, economic, or health effects.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23603

Comment: Finally, EEI notes that the Internet has become an important source of information for the public, and EEI echoes the Agency‘s desire to utilize its capabilities to provide not only for public involvement, but also--perhaps more importantly as an initial matter--for public education on the benefits and true risks of CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. EPA is not requiring the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23657

Comment: In its comments, AWWA makes several recommendations for the following specific items to be included in the final regulation:- Requirement for mandatory public notification and public hearings for any new permit and any permit revision or renewal, and for a 90-day public comment period

Response: EPA disagrees that a 90-day comment period should be required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, and which require public notice for most permit modifications, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations.

EPA also disagrees that public hearings should be mandatory for all GS permits, in order to account for the possibility that, if the public does not express an interest in a hearing, holding one would not be useful. 40 CFR 124.12 requires the Director to hold public hearings if there is a significant degree of interest in a draft permit. EPA expects that public hearings will be requested and held for many GS projects, due to the expected level of public interest in GS projects.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23675 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1910 1.4.4 Stakeholder outreach

Comment: Data and Research Needs: AWWA believes that stakeholder access to the necessary data is lacking and will inhibit making informed/transparent decisions on geologic carbon sequestration projects. Stakeholders need better and more accessible data and data reduction tools (i.e., GIS maps). EPA should consider creating an interactive web based data warehouse that would store data and GIS layers on large carbon dioxide emitters, drinking water groundwater basins, seismic/volcanic/geothermal zones, proposed carbon dioxide saline injection basins, etc. and provide the ability to overlay layers. Stakeholders would then have improved abilities to evaluate a proposed geologic sequestration project to determine if they would be impacted by the carbon dioxide plume and/or associated pressure front.

Response: EPA notes that the full results of the regional carbon sequestration partnership pilot projects will be available to the public once the projects are complete (the results of Phase II of these projects are currently available). Results of other research sponsored by EPA and DOE are available in the GS rulemaking docket as it is complete.

EPA agrees that all information presented to the public must be clear, understandable, and available. In addition to requiring public notice of all draft permits under §124.10(a)(1)(ii), stakeholders may request copies of the draft permit and the permit application during the draft permit comment period; the application includes data on the geology of the injection and confining zones which are likely to be used as inputs for modeling. However, it is likely that information submitted in support of a permit in its original form (e.g., modeling inputs) may be extremely technical and not easily understood by a lay audience. Permitting authorities are required under §124.8 to produce a fact sheet which typically summarizes relevant information for the public in a much more understandable format than the supporting data in a permit application. The fact sheet describes the draft permit conditions, procedures to determine the final decision on the permit, any procedures to request ahearing, and procedures that may be available for additional public participation in the final permitting decision. EPA will encourage permitting authorities and operators to present all modeling data to the public.

EPA has no plans to create a web-based GIS database, due to the sheer volume of information required and variety in GIS software products available by potential users.

Information about specific GS projects would be available from permitting authorities as part of the administrative record associated with each permit. EPA will encourage (but not require) that this

information be available online.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23716

Comment: Most of the geologic sequestration projects will be located in rural areas where the local water utility is very small with limited staffing and funding resources. While these utilities may be impacted by the projects, they may not have the technical ability to adequately participate in a project review. Therefore, AWWA recommends that as part of the public participation requirements, owner/operators should be required to notify and involve national and state drinking water organizations as well as the local water utilities. This would allow the local utility to be supported technically by the staff of the national organization, which can provide technical expertise in drinking water issues related to carbon sequestration.

Each project should be required to establish public advisory groups, such as those created for some of the regional carbon sequestration partnership projects. Owner/operators need to ensure they identify stakeholders groups from water sector, such as rural water associations, groundwater associations, and drinking water utility associations. These groups would be involved in the project from the beginning and provide the stakeholder voice for the project.

AWWA recommends that the public comment period for the permit review process be extended in the final regulation. Due to the technical nature of the geologic sequestration process, AWWA recommends that the comment period be extended from 30 days to 90 days. A 30 day comment period does not provide enough time for outside groups to obtain the permit, perform a detailed technical review and generate comments. Extending the comment period for 90 days allows the stakeholders to perform a much more comprehensive review of the project.

The issue of environmental justice must be appropriately considered when involving the public in geologic sequestration projects. Consideration should be given to ensure that certain populations aren't repeatedly subjected to the problems that may arise from the sequestration projects. It is also necessary to remember that not everyone has access to the same media outlets. When an owner/operator is advertising public hearings or comment periods, they should be required to utilize all forms of media, including the newspaper, radio, television and internet. The general public has a wide range of media-viewing habits, and many have moved away from some of the more traditional communication

methods.Response: EPA recognizes that there may be local public interest in GS projects, and notes that the Director has the authority to include local governments in the public participation process as necessary. The existing public participation requirements for UIC permits at §124.10(c)(1)(x)(A) require notification "to any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located." In addition, the final rule adds a requirement that the director of the State Public Water System Supervision program be notified. See §124.10(c)(1)(xi). EPA anticipates that this state director will notify public water systems within the area of review and will make their own evaluation of the proposed project.

EPA anticipates that drinking water associations and local water utilities will express interest in and be notified of draft permits and public hearings as required under §124.10(c)(1)(ix) and 40 CFR Part 25.5 (where EPA is providing public information) which requires the permitting authority to notify all interested parties.

EPA disagrees that a 90-day comment period should be required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at 40 CFR 124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations.

Regarding the suggestion to form advisory groups, EPA clarifies that such advisory groups could participate in the public process associated with any GS project, although such groups are not necessary for the public to engage the agency about any GS project.

EPA agrees that environmental justice is an important concern. The Agency has determined that the GS rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations. Please see the discussion of Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 in the preamble to the final GS rule. The rule does not require that GS be undertaken; but does require that if it is undertaken, operators will conduct the activity in such a way as to protect USDWs from endangerment caused by CO2. Additionally, this rule will ensure that all areas of the United States are subject to the same minimum Federal requirements for protection of USDWs from endangerment from GS. EPA's primacy implementation materials for UIC Directors place emphasis on considering the potential impact of any GS permits on communities (such as minority and low income populations) when evaluating Class VI injection well permit applications, as well as provides suggestions and tools for targeted outreach to ensure more meaningful public input and participation from the most affected communities during the permit evaluation and approval process.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24556

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 73 FR 43522-23 EPA Preamble Question: 47. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as candidate locations are identified. EPA

Notice 43523.CSC Response: CSC does not believe that the public participation process should be extended to the site characterization stage of a GS project, particularly given that many sites might be characterized in the process of winnowing down the portfolio of potential sites.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. Generally, these regulations require the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Such information exchange can affect how the local community and surrounding communities perceive potential environmental, economic, or health effects.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24618

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43522- 23 EPA Rule Issue: 47. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as candidate locations are identified. EPA

Notice 43523.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: While public participation is critical, bringing in public review before the project details are worked out can create unnecessary complications. APC does not believe that the public participation process should be extended to the site characterization stage of a GS project, particularly given that many sites might be characterized in the process of winnowing down the portfolio of potential sites.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. Generally, these regulations require the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit. EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Such information exchange can affect how the local community and surrounding communities perceive potential environmental, economic, or health effects.

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection maybegin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the site.

Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone Letter ID: 0212 Commenter Organization: Tampa Electric Company Comment ID: 22913

Comment: The ultimate successful long term implementation of a UIC Final Rule will be dependant on public outreach of the GS of CO2. It is critically important to: (1) identify and respond to public needs, fears, and desires; (2) inform the public about carbon sequestration strategies; (3) involve the public in a joint discovery of opportunities associated with carbon sequestration; (4) educate the public the appropriate amount of risk associated with long term GS of CO2; (5) and enable the public to more effectively evaluate costs and benefits associated with carbon sequestration.

Response: EPA agrees that informing the public on all aspects of GS projects is important. The Agency encourages permitting authorities and GS operators to provide the public, including residents near the project, with as much project-specific information as possible. EPA encourages owners or operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Such information exchange can affect how the local community and surrounding communities perceive potential environmental, economic, or health effects.

The Agency also believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. Generally, these regulations require the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

In addition to requiring public notice of all draft permits under §124.10(a)(1)(ii), stakeholders may request copies of the draft permit and the permit application during the draft permit comment period. Permitting authorities are required under §124.8 to produce a fact sheet which typically summarizes relevant information for the public in a much more understandable format than the supporting data in a permit application. The fact sheet describes the draft permit conditions, procedures to determine the final decision on the permit, any procedures to request a hearing, and procedures that may be available for additional public participation in the final permitting decision.

In response to the comment about the regulations ensuring that the public is informed of the full cost of a GS project, EPA clarifies that any impact on the cost of electricity is likely to be influenced by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; EPA estimates that the GS requirements amount to approximately 3 percent of the total CCS project costs.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22927Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3500 2.2.3 Area of Review Reevaluation (seeking comment)

Comment: In addition, AMWA recommends that local drinking water utilities be included in the AoR review process, as drinking water or potential drinking water sources may become threatened due to a change in plume direction or behavior. Public involvement also needs to be a mandatory part of the AoR reevaluation process.

Response: EPA agrees that coordination between GS project owners or operators, program Directors, drinking water utilities that may be affected by GS activities, and the public is important. EPA encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet and other available tools to explain potential GS projects, describe the technology, and post information on the latest developments, including schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA has added a requirement at §124.10(c)(1)(xi) that state and local oil and gas regulatory agencies and state agencies regulating mineral exploration and recovery, the PWSS program director, and all agencies that oversee injection wells in the state must be notified as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit.

EPA encourages permitting authorities to notify and involve as many stakeholders as possible including drinking water organizations and local water utilities. §124.10(c)(1)(x)(A) requires notification "to any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located; and (B) to each State agency having any authority under State law with respect to the construction or operation of such facility."

EPA anticipates that drinking water associations and local water utilities will express interest in and be notified of draft permits and public hearings as required under §124.10(c)(1)(ix) and 40 CFR Part 25.5 (where EPA is providing public information) which requires the permitting authority to notify all interested parties.

EPA notes that public notice is required if the Director determines that a major permit modification is necessary as a result of an AoR reevaluation or other indication that the plume is moving in a manner other than predicted. See §144.39(a)(5).

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22944 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3500 2.2.3 Area of Review Reevaluation (seeking comment)

Comment:plume direction or behavior. Public involvement also needs to be a mandatory part of the AoR reevaluation process.

Response: EPA notes that, public notice is required if the Director determines that a major permit modification is necessary as a result of an AoR reevaluation. See §144.39(a)(5).

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23270

Comment: 47. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as

soon as candidate locations are identified. EPA Notice 43523.Public participation requirements should be left to the regulating agency and not prescribed. The applicant should be allowed to do some site characterization to assess site suitability and project feasibility before the public is engaged. Requirements could mirror the agency’s existing public notice and participation requirements.

Response: EPA believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24826

Comment: EPA Notice Questions: 73 FR 43522-23

EPA Rule Issue: 47. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as candidate locations are identified. EPA

Notice 43523.

GWPC CO2 Committee Response: This is best left up to the discretion of the regulator. Establishing a process may provide a standard that can be followed by developers. There was concern about the term "as soon as". If included, this term should be changed to a more reasonable period following applicant evaluation of a site. Public participation requirements should be similar to other portions of the UIC program (e.g. Class I). The program should assure a public hearings process when warranted by substantive issues and affected stakeholders but the timing and particulars of the process should not be prescribed in the rule.

Response: The Agency believes that public participation is an important part of the UIC permitting process and wants to ensure wide access to decision-making processes and information on projects that may affect the public. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. Generally, these regulations require the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to request a public hearing on the draft permit. Furthermore, §124.12(a) requires the Director to hold a public hearing whenever he or she finds based on received comments articulating a significant degree of public interest in a draft permit.EPA encourages operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by providing information as early in the process as possible. Such information exchange can affect how the local community and surrounding communities perceive potential environmental, economic, or health

effects.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22829

Comment: IV. How Should UIC Program Directors Involve the Public In Permitting Decisions for GS Projects?

UU. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as

candidate locations are identified.

IOGCC Response: All states have public notice laws and regulations that cover most regulatory and permitting functions. These laws and regulations would extend to the permitting and the regulation of GS that require public notice, hearings and due process to all affected parties. This should be adequate for public involvement purposes.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. GS permitting authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit.

EPA notes that administrative procedure laws vary by state. States will describe their public participation activities in their primacy applications and must be at least as stringent as those provided under Parts 145 and 146.

In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete.

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



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Michael H. Cochran Letter ID:

0108 Commenter Organization: Bureau of Water, Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Comment

ID: 21947Comment: 7. Adequate funding must be provided by EPA to the states so the states can properly administer these wells in a protective manner. This is new, additional work for the states that EPA is responsible for funding. Current funding provided by EPA does not adequately cover the costs of existing state UIC programs, let alone this additional work.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the States to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Karl R. Moor Letter ID: 0109 Commenter Organization: Southern Company, on behalf of Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Comment ID:

22009 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards); 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process

Comment: Flexible, site-specific regulations ask a great deal of the regulator, in this case the UIC program director. Despite these challenges, EEI urges EPA to consider these types of regulations because they present a win-win situation: a higher level of environmental protection while fostering a regulatory regime that encourages investment in CCS projects. We also acknowledge that these benefits cannot be realized unless the UIC program director is given good guidance on how best to exercise his or her discretion. EPA should provide that guidance in either the final regulations or supplemental guidance, in order to ensure that the director’s decisions have a sound regulatory basis.

Response: EPA agrees that flexibility is important to accommodate the varied conditions that may be encountered at GS sites. EPA notes that the final rule does allow owners or operators flexibility. Many of the permit requirements will be established through site-specific plans developed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director, and EPA anticipates that owners or operators will consult with the Director as they develop, implement, and update these plans. 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 or approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe as part of the permitting process under §146.93, allow the use of alternate methods for mechanical integrity testing, and waive the requirement that wells be designed to inject below the lowermost USDW. Additionally, the regulations provide flexibility for selecting appropriate sites and target formations at §146.82, well construction specifics at §146.86, and testing and monitoring regimes at §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.

EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of allowing Directors discretion given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth,geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum Federal requirements to ensure national consistency while ensuring the protection of USDWs. To ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues related to developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits so that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0111 Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of USWAG Comment ID: 22404

Comment: 5. Because state regulators have worked extensively with permitting UIC Class V experimental carbon dioxide wells and have familiarity with environmental, geologic, and financial concerns specific to a given region, adoption and implementation of the Class VI rules by the states will be crucial to the success of the Program.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum Federal requirements to ensure national consistency while ensuring the protection of USDWs.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach. TheAgency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22540

Comment: PRIMACY

We find many of the state regulator are knowledgeable, but many state regulators are not formally trained and certainly not Professional Engineers. CO2 sequestration is too technical and dangerous an undertaking to leave the highly technical review and decision making to non-Professional Engineers. The instant Class VI rule must be based on Primacy only being given to State and Tribes employing and using specially trained Professional Engineers for review and approval of CO2 sequestration projects. Without this provision, EPA places the general public in severe danger.

Response: EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is critically important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EPA notes that staff in existing State UIC Programs including programs that implement the UIC requirements under section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and State oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA have expertise in the technical areas necessary to evaluate permit applications and effectively oversee GS projects.

When a State applies for Class VI Primacy, it must demonstrate that it has sufficient and appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, technical expertise) to implement a Class VI program that meets EPA's minimum Federal requirements finalized by this rulemaking. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA. The guidance will also provide tools designed to assist UIC Directors with evaluating permit application information. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Regarding the suggestion that specially trained professional engineers review and approve CO2 GS projects, EPA notes that most permitting authority staff have years of experience with the current injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines. EPA will also consult with NDWAC, associations and organizations, ORD, and experts to provide cross-regional assistance and build expertise.

Commenter Name: Doug Louis Letter ID: 0121 Commenter Organization: Kansas Corporation Commission Comment ID: 22086

Comment: Conclusion

It is our hope the EPA will fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states to administer the program. The 1425 program we administer is not fully funded and has seen cuts each year for the past three fiscal years. It has also become increasingly difficult for states to manage primacy programs that demand increasing budgets but undergo annual funding decreases. Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns and questions.Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21515 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: Primacy for Class VI Wells

-There are no statutory limitations to EPA granting primacy to states for individual classes of underground injection wells; however, EPA typically refuses to do so by policy. Pennsylvania requests that EPA allow separable primacy for the proposed Class VI UIC well program, to secure that option. Resources to conduct the program continue to be the issue for any state considering primacy of the UIC program. Federal appropriations have been stagnant for over a decade at $10 million for the national program. Pennsylvania is concerned that EPA may not be able to secure the funding necessary to develop a robust Class VI well program that includes on-the-ground resources for non-primacy states.

-Adequate resources must be made available to effectively develop and implement a program for this added category of UIC well that is this significantly different from other UIC well types.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage States to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land userights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23092

Comment: 1.Global supports EPA’s intent to delegate implementation of the program to authorized state agencies, and recommends ensuring that the state has ultimate decision authority over lower government entities such as counties and cities.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

Regarding authority provided to local governments, EPA clarifies that its authority to delegate primary enforcement responsibility extends only to states (including tribes and territories), not local governments. EPA notes that local governments have the right to provide input on a proposed Class VI permit during the public notice and comment period (consistent with Part 124) required to be included in every State approved program under §145.11. Additionally, the state is required to have a program which ensures consideration of all comments before a final permit decision is made.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23094 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed

Comment: 2.EPA should set standards and criteria that will result in reasonably consistent implementation and results regardless of geographic location.

3.EPA should establish a hierarchy of authority for decision making and oversight, to ensure interstate and inter- jurisdictional conflicts are avoided. In this, Global appreciates that some states have moved ahead to implement carbon management programs. However, it is our view that effective and early implementation will be best served by consistency across the board. We therefore encourage EPA to review the programs of all states and select the common threads that are most suitable to early and effective implementation.

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. The GS rule sets forth minimum Federal requirements, 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 flexibility 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. Such requirements where the Director has discretion include whether to require owners or operators to identify 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-injection site care timeframeas part of the permitting process, as specified in §146.93. The GS rule balances the need for sitespecific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency and USDW protection from endangerment while also ensuring that states have the data they need to make permitting decisions. EPA Headquarters also plans to review initial permits to ensure that the final rule, including all permitting decisions, are implemented consistently, and to ensure that USDW protection goals are consistently met across differing geologic situations.EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. EPA is developing primacy implementation materials for states that describe recommended approaches to addressing trans-boundary issues during the permitting of Class VI wells under the GS regulation. The materials will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

In response to questions about which state or region would oversee the permit for projects where the AoR spans State, Tribal, or Territorial boundaries, EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary-related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribe, or Territory) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is

located.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23103

Comment: 4.We strongly support that EPA should establish national standard and guidelines, and delegate implementation to states. Site selection and well installation criteria should be clear but flexible, affording states discretion and judgment with respect to risk management.

Response: As described above, EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI wells independently of primacy for other well classes. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the technical and administrative issues on developing and implementing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. EPA is also developing materials for owners or operators on site characterization and well construction. The guidances will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA expects that both Headquarters and the Regions will work closely with the states during the early permitting process to ensure that flexibility is applied in a manner that ensures a consistent level of USDW protection from endangerment. EPA designed flexibility into the regulations to ensure that site-specific factors can be accounted for and expects that permit writers will use discretion where site-specific factors are important. As part of its adaptive approach, EPA also plansto review initial permits (after they are granted) to ensure that USDW protection goals have been consistently met across differing geologic situations. If necessary, EPA will reevaluate the flexibility granted to states in the rule.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141 Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23118

Comment: 4.We believe discretion afforded the states for implementation of this program

is warranted.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of allowing Directors discretion given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency. To ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues related to developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits and that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Commenter Name: Christine Reimer Letter ID: 0142 Commenter Organization: National Ground Water Association Comment ID: 22594 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3560 2.2.3.2 Conditions that merit reevaluation of the AoR (seeking comment)

Comment: Proposed Rule: 146.84(c)

Comment: There should be somewhere in the rules a requirement that "mutual interference effects" should trigger reevaluation and re-delineation of the AORs of all projects that are interferring with each other. In essence, when a new project is submitted for permitting, there should be a system-wide, "regional" entity charged with ensuring that AORs for each project are appropriate, andperhaps that a "hybrid" or "combo AOR" be defined for the set of mutuallyinterferring projects.

No rationale providedResponse: EPA anticipates that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically

connected formations will be accounted for in the initial AoR calculation. EPA adds that the owner or operator must demonstrate, in the proposed AoR and corrective action plan, to the satisfaction of the Director that the modeled AoR will be based on detailed geologic data collected on the site and includes consideration of existing conditions such as the presence of multiple operators. EPA adds that if any new GS projects are permitted within the AoR of a GS project between AoR evaluations, the AoR reevaluation would need to address such projects. EPA also expects that the permitting of the newer GS project would have considered the presence of an existing GS project.

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, EPA Regional, or national boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146 Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21723

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

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacyfor Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name: Bonnie Lovelace Letter ID: 0152 Commenter Organization: Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Comment ID:

22102

Comment: 2. MDEQ supports delegation of Class VI primacy to states as a separate and distinct delegation process, not requiring states to also be delegated any of the other classes. Throughout this rulemaking notice and discussion, EPA points out the differences between carbon dioxide injection and other classes ofinjection activities.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any otherwell Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Bonnie Lovelace Letter ID: 0152 Commenter Organization: Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Comment ID:

22103

Comment: 3. EPA must provide adequate funding to states delegated primacy in the UIC program. Current levels are not adequate and a new program must not only be adequate, but allow for start up.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153 Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Comment ID:

22140

Comment: 5. There was no appreciable discussion of funding mechanisms to run the program

at the state level.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155 Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21258Comment: 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;

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. The GS rule sets forth minimum requirements, 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 flexibility 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. Such requirements where the Director has discretion include whether to require owners or operators to identify 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-injection site care timeframe as part of the permitting process, as specified in §146.93. EPA Headquarters also plans to review initial permits to ensure that the final rule, including all permitting decisions, 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 obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wellsunder section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name:James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization:Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22621 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation

Comment: On the Issue of Primacy: An Example of the Challenge Inherent in "Filling in the Missing Linkages between Class VI Rule and a Larger National Climate Policy"

Given the need to link the issuance and compliance with a Class VI injection permit to a larger national climate policy and eventually the need to link that U.S. national climate policy to an international climate policy regime, careful consideration should be given about how high the bar should be set for granting primacy to States, Territories, and Tribes. There is a significant imperative to make sure that CCS derived emissions reductions are comparable (and more precisely fungible) with GHG emission reductions obtained by implementing other greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and measures. A delicate balance must be sought between the desire to delegate authority to the local level with a need to preserve a sufficient level of national uniformity in how CO2 storage is carried out in practice. At a very minimum, the USEPA needs to recognize and reject as insufficient such reasoning that says because a state has shown that it can handle the Class II program they should also be given primacy for Class VI wells. The requirements to eventually integrate this proposed Class VI rule which in its present form is bounded by the SDWA into a much larger climate protection regulatory structure implies that the decision to grant primacy must be deliberate and must explicitly take account of how it would complicate the smooth and efficient functioning of a national climate policy.

The degree to which EPA changes what is proposed as a common federal rule for Class VI CO2 storage wells because some states might be further along in the development of their own CO2 storage regulations (see for example discussion of "Who implements the UIC program" p. 43497) must also take into account the need for an owner/operator of CCS infrastructure to eventually be able to take CO2 injected under a class VI permit in Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, California, Washington State, etc. and turn that into a tradable/fungible emissions reduction credit (or a verified non-emission) that could be used to satisfy the requirements of a national climate policy. The degree to which the federal class VI CO2 storage policy should be amended to allow for discrepancies in how individual states are currently planning on regulating CO2 storage must take into account the need to create an economically efficient national climate change policy. This consideration goes well beyond the boundaries of the SDWA but it must be addressed by the USEPA as a whole if this proposed Class VI storage rule is to be put into practice (e.g., if this issue is not resolved it is hard to see the private sector motivation for deploying CCS technologies even if the Class VI rule is in place).

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. EPA clarifies that the primacy approval processes for Class II and Class VI differ. The SDWA directsEPA to grant primary enforcement responsibility (or primacy) to the States through two statutory provisions. The first provision, under Section 1422, provides for States to demonstrate that their proposed UIC program is at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements in order to prevent endangerment of USDWs. The second provision, under Section 1425, allows States to submit an alternative demonstration for their Class II programs (oil and gas) where the State only has to demonstrate that its proposed Class II program is an effective program to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs.

EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand many of the issues pertaining to Class VI wells and have experience with CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport, as well as familiarity with local interests and the SDWA. EPA assumes that this experience, along with the agencies' familiarity with UIC permitting requirements, will help facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs and assumes that many states with Class II programs will choose to have the Class II primacy agency implement the Class VI program. However, EPA clarifies that, while there are many similarities between Class II and Class VI wells, additional requirements are needed to fully address the unique nature of Class VI wells for CO2 GS, and because GS wells are not oil and gas wells, they must be regulated under authority of Section

1422 of SDWA.

EPA believes that the requirement that states' regulations meet the minimum federal requirements will promote national consistency. To further ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance documents for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements.

EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues. However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, consistent with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA.

In a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name:James Childress Letter ID: 0158 Commenter Organization: Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) Comment ID: 23764

Comment: Concern #9: On-going state efforts to regulate GS. (Ref: page 43497, Sec. C. Who Implements the UIC Program?)Although we recognize that state primacy is integral to the UIC program, we strongly recommend that EPA drive its state stakeholder activities towards the goal of unanimity and uniformity of technical requirements. Disparate requirements and processes will increase cost, delay, and complexity and make the permitting process less predictable. Individual states should not develop regulations that are substantially more restrictive or prescriptive than that required by the EPA. Many states will also not have technical resources that are comparable to that of the US EPA. EPA's stakeholder technical workshops had good representation from the EPA regions, but it appears that many states have not yet been engaged. To avoid this and the problems from a patchwork of permitting regulations, EPA should carefully but quickly consider and integrate input from a majority of state environmental protection and conservation and natural

resource offices.

Response: EPA recognizes the importance of consistency in state regulations. Under Section 1421 of the SDWA, EPA is responsible for the development of minimum federal requirements for underground injection wells to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. In order to receive primacy the States, Tribes, and Territories must then demonstrate that their programs are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements, which helps to ensure consistency between State UIC programs. The Agency acknowledges that Section 1422 of the SDWA provides that States, Tribes and Territories may develop requirements that are more stringent than the federal requirements –for Class VI GS and other UIC well classes.

Furthermore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow Director's discretion, given the variety of geologic settings even within each State in which GS will be applied. The Agency believes that the GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

When a State applies for Class VI Primacy, it must demonstrate that it has sufficient and appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, technical expertise) to implement a Class VI program that meets EPA's minimum requirements. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: M. Michael Rounds Letter ID: 0159 Commenter Organization: Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) Comment ID: 22231

Comment: Development of geologic sequestration projects will also require increased resources for implementation of the UIC program. Thus, we support increased federal support for state implementation of geologic sequestration regulation under the UIC program, and we urge EPA to recognize that need as well.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the States to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:Joseph Eutizi Letter ID: 0161 Commenter Organization: San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc Comment ID: 21287

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

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name:James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21315

Comment: § NRECA believes that the states will have the best knowledge of regional geology, existing projects, areas in need of special protection, etc. and that states should be allowed to assume primacy for administration of the UIC Class VI well program.Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name:James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21326 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: 5. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that will facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program.

For these reasons, NRECA believes it is appropriate to allow states to obtain primacy for the entire UIC program or for only Class VI wells if a particular state so chooses. Id. at 43523. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program, and as EPA predicts, states obtaining primacy for Class VI wells -- regardless of whether they have sought primacy under other aspects of the UIC program -- may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 (SDWA § 1422).

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC programs including programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under Section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand thetechnical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells

under Section 1422 of SDWA.

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

Throughout the GS regulatory development process, EPA has made it a priority to engage States and State organizations. EPA works with State co-regulators on regulatory issues related to GS – including state representation on the GS regulatory development workgroup. The Agency has also conducted a series of stakeholder and technical workshops, and public hearings, and EPA met with national organizations including the Ground Water Protection Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the American Association of State Geologists. EPA values coordination with States and State co-regulators and will continue an open dialogue as the Agency moves forward in the regulatory development process.

As described above, EPA plans to allow States to apply for primacy for the Class VI program independently of primacy for other well classes.

Commenter Name: Michael Mudd Letter ID: 0167 Commenter Organization: FutureGen Alliance (FGIA) Comment ID: 22465

Comment: Primacy Question

If an injection site boarder more than one state, which state or region will have primacy over the UIC permit?

Response: EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary-related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA is developing primacy implementation materials for states that describe recommended approaches to addressing trans-boundary issues that a state may need to address when permitting Class VI wells under the GS regulation. The materials will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23361 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: General Issues Related to Classification and Regulation of CO2 GS Wells -- Pg. 20

APPA believes the creation of a new category of wells under the UIC Program for long-term storage of CO2 is appropriate and agrees with EPA that the Final Rule should create a delegable program and encourage the adoption andimplementation of that program by States.

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 endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23403 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS

Comment: Because state regulators in approximately five or six states have worked extensively with Owners or Operators of UIC Class V experimental CO2 wells they have familiarity with environmental, geologic, and financial concerns specific to a given region, their adoption and tailored implementation of the CO2 GS rules will be crucial to the success of the Program.

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells(particularly Class V experimental technology wells)) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class

VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA.

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24265

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523 EPA Preamble Question: 48. To gain authority for Class VI wells, States, Territories, and Tribes will be required to show that their regulations are at least as stringent as, and may be more stringent than, the proposed minimum Federal requirements (e.g., inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that well owners or operators must meet). Such Primacy States, Territories, and Tribes are authorized under Section 1422 of the SDWA. EPA

Notice 43523.

API Response: States should be able to gain primacy as long as they show that their regulations are at least as stringent as the proposed minimum Federal requirements. EPA should ensure that adequate funding is provided for the delegated program.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA clarifies that, in order for States, Tribes, or Territories to obtain primacy for Class VI wells (under Section 1422 of the SDWA) they must demonstrate that they have requirements that are at least as stringent as the Federal Class VI requirements; have the authority to inspect and assess construction and operation of the wells as well as have the necessary legal authorities to take administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions required by the SDWA under §1423; impose criminal, civil, and administrative penalties on owners and operators for non-compliance with regulatory requirements; and demonstrate sufficient/appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, and technical expertise) to implement their Class VI programs.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.Commenter Name: Erik Silvola Letter ID: 0171 Commenter Organization: Great River Energy Comment ID: 23443

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

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name:James Taft Letter ID: 0172 Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Comment ID:

23457

Comment: State Resources Needed:

The financial and resource burden on EPA and state primacy agencies to assess the geologic sequestration permit submissions, evaluate the technical models, and make permitting determinations will be greatly increased by this rule. Financial resource considerations should accompany eventual promulgation of the rule in order to ensure adequate state funding for these various tasks.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the States to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challengesassociated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:James Taft Letter ID: 0172 Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Comment ID:

23458 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: State Primacy Considerations:

EPA should investigate options for state primacy considerations under SDWA 1425 to regulate the new class VI wells for carbon sequestration independently of other well classes. As the proposed rule is currently written, it precludes states that only have primacy on Class II wells.

Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1425 of SDWA allows an alternative primacy demonstration only for programs regulating injection wells associated with oil and gas recovery or natural gas storage. Therefore, wells used for the purpose of GS cannot be covered under Section 1425. While EPA acknowledges that states that have not obtained primacy under SDWA Section 1422 for other well classes may be less familiar with implementing the UIC program under that section of the Act, the Agency does not believe this would preclude their ability to effectively obtain and implement primacy for Class VI wells. EPA does not intend to limit primacy of Class VI wells to only states with primacy for Class II wells—any state that can demonstrate in its primacy application that it has developed regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) in the final GS rule will be granted primacy for Class VI wells.

EPA also plans to support states as needed to help them develop and implement their Class VI programs. EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI independently of other well classes regardless of whether or not they have primacy for other well classes. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories to describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name:James Rower Letter ID: 0173 Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23468

Comment: • Because state regulators have worked extensively with Owners or Operators of UIC Class V experimental CO2 wells and have familiarity with environmental, geologic, and financial concerns specific to a given region, state adoption and tailored implementation of the CO2 GS rules will be crucial to the success ofthe Program.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages States to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name:James Rower Letter ID: 0173 Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23475 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment:With respect to the integration of state programs, USWAG agrees that the Final Rule should create a delegable program and encourage the adoption and implementation of that program by states. Id. at 43497. Our members' experiences with Class V experimental CO2 wells underscore the benefits of regulation on a state level. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that will facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program. For these reasons, it is appropriate to allow states to obtain primacy for only Class VI wells if a particular state so chooses. Id. at 43523. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program and EPA is correct in predicting that states obtaining primacy for Class VI wells - regardless of whether they have sought primacy for other well classes under the UIC program - may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 (SDWA § 1422).Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for States to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23558 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VIwells (seeking comment)

Comment: Regarding whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, EEI agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. Further, many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCS activities. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells (in particular, allowing them to take on primacy for Class VI without assuming the regulatory burden that may be associated with other well classes) will help ensure that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work on CCS.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23604 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: I. State Primacy Provisions

The proposed rules seek comment on whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, noting the Agency‘s belief that "the most effective approach for the comprehensive management of CO2 GS projects would be achieved at the State and Tribal level." EEI agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. Numerous states have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II programs, and those states in particular may have much to offer in the context of Class IV wells. Further, many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCS activities--in many cases laws and rules that go beyond the scope of EPA‘s jurisdiction, such as incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of potentially affected property rights. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells (in particular, allowing them to take on primacy for Class VI without assuming the regulatory burden that may be associated with other well classes) will help ensure that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work on CCS. EEI supports increased funding for those states that have primacy for Class VI wells to ensure that sufficient resources exist to review appropriately the complex permit applications GS projects will entail.

EEI also encourages the Agency to consider potential issues related to projects that may span multiple states in light of primacy issues. Under such circumstances the rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a primary state for permitting purposes, with additional affected states provided an opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: As described above, EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI wells independently of primacy for other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

In response to the question about which state or region would oversee the permit for projects where the AoR spans State, Tribal or Territorial boundaries, EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is

located.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes,and Territories interested in obtaining primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. EPA is developing primacy implementation materials for states that describe trans-boundary issues that should be addressed in permitting Class VI wells under the GS regulation. The materials will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and expects that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Commenter Name: Lee O. Fuller Letter ID: 0179 Commenter Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America et

al. Comment ID:

23614

Comment: A third area of concern relates to the federal-state regulatory relationship and the process for a state to obtain primacy for Class VI wells. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) has been actively developing a regulatory framework for GS wells. We urge EPA to work closely and cooperatively with IOGCC to develop a sound regulatory framework. IOGCC member states have a long history of managing UIC operations, particularly those related to CO2 EOR. EPA needs to develop a structure that can be willingly sought by states.

Class II wells provide an example of the risks that can arise. After enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974, EPA developed a Class II regulatory structure that states were largely unwilling to adopt. Faced with a regulatory burden that EPA could not bear of permitting Class II wells throughout the country, Congress enacted amendments in 1980 to the SDWA to provide for states to obtain primacy for Class II wells based on equivalent environmental protection rather than adopting the EPA regulatory program itself. The Class VI program should not result in a similar outcome. The SDWA is structured with the presumption that states will obtain primacy for the UIC program and manage the wells that must be developed. While EPA suggests that a national structure may be necessary to address interstate consistency, this dynamic would pale compared to the challenge for EPA to attempt to develop the permitting expertise and daily regulatory management capability to run a national UIC Class VI program given the enormous volumes of captured carbon resulting from the aggressive global climate initiatives currently proposed. Moreover, the history of the IOGCC shows that it can serve as a multistate management operation. While it has been decades since it has functioned to allocate oil and natural gas production among states, IOGCC’s original role was managing oil and natural gas production to avoid wasted resources. This history works well in the context of coordinating the movement of captured carbon tostate regulated UIC operations. Consequently, a close relationship between IOGCC and EPA in crafting a workable structure where states will seek primacy is essential for a positive national outcome.

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of IOGCC, and notes that it coordinated with IOGCC throughout the rulemaking process. EPA also recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA also understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23714

Comment: Other AWWA Comments Related to State Primacy and Capacity: When EPA allows states to obtain primacy for the Class VI wells and develop their own regulations for geologic sequestration, these regulations must be developed in accordance with Section 1422 of the SDWA instead of Section 1425. The language in Section 1422 mandates that state requirements for geologic sequestration be as stringent as federal requirements. By comparison, the language in Section 1425 mandates that the state requirements represent an "effective" program to prevent injection which endangers drinking water sources. The language in Section 1425 leaves too much room for interpretation, and could result in varying degrees of protection of USDWs across the country. Given the current strain on our groundwater resources in some areas of the United States, AWWA recommends that EPA ensure state regulations provide at least the same level of protection as the federal regulations.

AWWA recognizes that the SDWA currently provides for a $16 million statuary limit for federal support to states to enact and enforce the Act. Given that state primacy agencies are already resource limited and are inadequately funded to cover existing oversight responsibilities, AWWA anticipates that this regulation could place an even larger burden on them. Geologic carbon sequestration will require new resources, and in addition, staff with very specialized expertise in areas such as groundwater, wells, geochemistry, and underground injection. Inadequate resources and staff capabilities will result in delayed permit reviews/approvals and/or rushed and poor decision making. AWWArecognizes the funding limitation for the state primacy programs and this is an issue that Congress would have address either through a modification of the SDWA or by a revenue set-aside as part of a future "cap and trade" program. As a result, AWWA recommends that EPA consider the potential burden on state programs when finalizing the regulation and look for ways to streamline the process without sacrificing the protective measures of the regulation.

Response: EPA clarifies that primacy for Class II and primacy for Class VI are different. While there are many similarities between CO2-ER injection and GS, CO2 injection for the purpose of GS is not explicitly authorized under section 1425 of the SDWA; therefore GS of CO2 is regulated under Section 1422. In order for States, Tribes, or Territories to obtain Primacy for Class VI wells (under Section 1422 of the SDWA) they must demonstrate that they have requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal Class VI requirements; have the authority to inspect and assess construction and operation of the wells as well as have the necessary legal authorities to take administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions required by the SDWA under §1423, impose criminal, civil, and administrative penalties on owners and operators for non-compliance with regulatory requirements; and demonstrate sufficient/appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, and technical expertise) to implement their Class VI program.

However, EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies, which have been regulating Class II wells for decades. These agencies already understand many of the issues pertaining to Class VI wells, which should facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs in states with Class II

wells.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

EPA adds that the GS rule does not address “cap and trade.” Cap and trade is outside the scope of this rulemaking; the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that injection of CO2 for GS is conducted in a manner that is protective of USDWs.

Commenter Name: Ginny Brannon Letter ID: 0182 Commenter Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environment Comment ID:

23753 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the underground injection control program. These states, referred to as Primacy States, must meet the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs, including construction, operating, monitoring, testing, reporting, and closure requirements for well owners or operators.Additionally, the SDWA allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such as for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under Section 1422, or for Class II wells only under Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells only.

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of carbon dioxide. It is our contention that states should be able to seek primacy for Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now. Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and the proposed Class VI wells are similar in purpose and particularly suited as ‘stand

alone’ classes of wells.

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to assume primacy for Class VI wells.

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is critically important for effective implementation of the Class VI regulation. EPA acknowledges that such expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university systems, such as in state universities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise will benefit implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide.Commenter Name: Bradley J. Field Letter ID: 0186 Commenter Organization: New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Div. of Mineral Resources Comment ID:

25170

Comment: A. Funding: It is essential that EPA provide adequate funding to states assuming primacy jurisdiction under the UIC program to administer CO2 storage regulatory

activities.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: G. Graham Holden Letter ID: 0189 Commenter Organization: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Comment ID: 25248

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

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land userights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24557

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 73 FR 43523 EPA Preamble Question: 48. To gain authority for Class VI wells, States, Territories, and Tribes will be required to show that their regulations are at least as stringent as, and may be more stringent than, the proposed minimum Federal requirements (e.g., inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that well owners or operators must meet). Such Primacy States, Territories, and Tribes are authorized under Section 1422 of the SDWA. EPA

Notice 43523.

CSC Response: States should be able to gain primacy as long as they meet the requirements of the UIC program for obtaining and retaining primacy. EPA should ensure that adequate funding is provided for the delegated program.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be able to receive primacy for Class VI wells. EPA adds that States, Tribes, or Territories may obtain Primacy for Class VI wells (under Section 1422 of the SDWA) if they demonstrate that they have requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal Class VI requirements; have the authority to inspect and assess construction and operation of the wells as well as have the necessary legal authorities to take administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement actions required by the SDWA under §1423; impose criminal, civil, and administrative penalties on owners and operators for non-compliance with regulatory requirements; and demonstrate sufficient/appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, and technical expertise) to implement their Class VI program.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0191 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 23885

Comment: Need for adequate implementation resources

Although not directly addressed in the EPA proposal, the need for adequate resources to implement the regulatory program for geologic sequestration at both the federal and state levels is a major consideration and one that EPA should be addressing both internally and in its discussions with Congress. The annual national budget for the UIC program (approximately $11 million) has remainedstatic for many years, while UIC agencies have been asked to take on additional responsibilities. Furthermore, inflation of salaries and other expenses has eroded the buying power of the unchanging UIC budget. If state and regional agencies are asked to take on the additional workload of CO2 injection, while ensuring careful scientific review as well as an expeditious processing time, they will require additional trained staff and other resources.

If the nation is serious about controlling CO2 through underground injection, significant additional resources will need to be made available to hire new permitting staff and field inspectors. Those new staff, along with the existing cadre of UIC staff and managers, must be trained in subjects that will enable them to make prudent permitting, management, and oversight decisions. As momentum grows to begin sequestering CO2 underground, EPA and states will need to develop new regulatory requirements for CO2 wells and prepare to review applications and make permitting decisions. Failure to provide sufficient resources will likely create permitting backlogs, resulting in a bottleneck in the overall geologic sequestration effort.

The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) estimated in 2004 that an annual funding increase to $56 million would be needed just to meet the needs of the existing UIC program at the state level even without the addition of geologic sequestration project permitting.[FN2/] GWPC has further estimated that EPA will need to provide funding at a level of $100 million annually to meet the needs for the full UIC program, including the regulation of geologic sequestration. [FN2/: GWPC, Class V Resource Needs Survey, Summary (September 2004).]

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:Jeff W. Sheets Letter ID: 0192 Commenter Organization: ConocoPhillips Comment ID: 23906

Comment: Need for adequate implementation resources

Although not directly addressed in the EPA proposal, the need for adequate resources to implement the regulatory program for geologic sequestration at both the federal and state levels is a major consideration and one that EPA should be addressing both internally and in its discussions with Congress. The annual national budget for the UIC program (approximately $11 million) has remained static for many years, while UIC agencies have been asked to take on additional responsibilities. Furthermore, inflation of salaries and other expenses has eroded the buying power of the unchanging UIC budget. If state and regionalagencies are asked to take on the additional workload of CO2 injection, while ensuring careful scientific review as well as an expeditious processing time, they will require additional trained staff and other resources.

If the nation is serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 through underground injection, significant additional resources will need to be made available to hire new permitting staff and field inspectors. Those new staff, along with the existing cadre of UIC staff and managers, must be trained in subjects that will enable them to make prudent permitting, management, and oversight decisions. As momentum grows to begin sequestering CO2 underground, EPA and states will need to develop additional regulatory requirements and prepare to review applications and make permitting decisions. Failure to provide sufficient resources will likely create permitting backlogs, resulting in a bottleneck in the overall geologic sequestration effort.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:John R. Baza Letter ID: 0193 Commenter Organization: Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining Comment ID: 23907

Comment: The Division has been administering a Class II UIC Program for many years while receiving less than adequate funding from EPA. This deficit in funding has been compensated by the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Fee paid by operators based on oil and gas production volumes. It will be important for EPA to address adequate funding for the new Class VI Well program because states will not be able to simply take on such a new responsibility without a mechanism to adequately fund it.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0198Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation Comment ID: 23939

Comment: STATE ISSUES

We believe that the Final Rule should include a process that will allow delegation as well as encourage adoption and implementation of the program by states. If there is to be a smooth implementation of the Class VI wells, it will mean working closely with State regulators who are familiar local concerns and can work with the regulated community to address those specific concerns.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0198 Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation Comment ID: 23941

Comment: value of this overall program. A final aspect for the states will be the Agency’s ability to provide funding to the states to aid them in implementing the program. Some States will not have the adequate expertise or manpower to respond to the potential of this program and will need assistance to ensure that adequate staff is available.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24619

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523 EPA Rule Issue: 48. To gain authority for Class VI wells, States, Territories, and Tribes will be required to show that their regulations are at least as stringent as, and may be more stringent than, the proposed minimum Federal requirements (e.g., inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that well owners or operators must meet). Such Primacy States, Territories, and Tribes are authorized under Section 1422 of the SDWA. EPA

Notice 43523.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: Primacy should be granted for Class VI and Class II GS well classifications. In addition, the primacy for Class VI should be granted independently of other well classes allowing the states to determine the appropriate regulating agency (Class II-GS will obviously be part of the current Class II program).

EPA should ensure that adequate funding is provided for the delegated program.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State also had to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "partial primacy." It is veryimportant to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:John Corra Letter ID: 0205 Commenter Organization:Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

22189

Comment: 1. Funding: It is essential that the US EPA provide adequate funding to states assuming primacy jurisdiction under the UIC program to administer CO2 storage regulatory activities. EPA funding to states to administer federal environmental programs, such as UIC, continues to decline in terms of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country alone, substantial additional skills and resources will be required at the state level in order to develop and implement effective permitting and oversight programs. It is imperative that EPA recognize that need and begin to establish special provisions to set aside funds that states and tribes, will need to operate those programs.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone Letter ID: 0212 Commenter Organization: Tampa Electric Company Comment ID: 22912

Comment: - Because state regulators have worked extensively with Owners or Operators of UIC Class V experimental CO2 wells and have familiarity with environmental, geologic, and financial concerns specific to a given region, state adoption and tailored implementation of the CO2 GS rules will be crucial to the success of the Program.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0217 Commenter Organization:Xcel Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 21556 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: State Primacy

Xcel Energy supports the concept of state primacy. States should have the ability to obtain delegated authority for Class VI wells only, as opposed to being required to develop delegable programs for all classes of wells. As noted by EEI and USWAG, permitting decisions are best made at the state level where knowledge of local conditions and public concerns is the greatest. In addition, it is essential that the final rule establish a "lead state" concept for projects where the AoR may cross state boundaries. Xcel Energy supports assigning the project permitting lead role to the state where the Class VIwellhead is located.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, EPA Regional, or national boundaries. The final GS rule, at 146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application 146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan (146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.Commenter Name:Jonathon Palm Letter ID: 0222 Commenter Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau

of Water Pollution Control Comment ID:

21644 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: 5. In implementing this rule, the state will be encumbered with increased financial and resource burdens in assessing the geologic sequestration permit submissions, evaluating the technical models, and making permitting determinations. Financial resource considerations should accompany eventual promulgation of the rule in order to ensure adequate funding for these various

tasks.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21903

Comment: 12. Adoption of the Class VI rules should be accompanied by funding adequate to implement them. Regulation of GS through the UIC program cannot be effective unless funding is provided commensurate to the goals of the Class VI program. The EPA UIC budget, including grants to state programs, is chronically underfunded. Annual federal appropriations to the UIC program have been approximately $11 million: less than half the funding level ($25 million per year) authorized in the SDWA. Studies by the Ground Water Protection Council show that the Class V program would need an additional $50 million annually to meet its objectives and that the Class II program is under-funded by approximately $25 million annually. An under-resourced regulatory agency cannot ensure the safe and effective operation of GS projects.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233 Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS Reg Project Comment ID:

21913

Comment: 22. Primacy issues: Many geological formations suitable for GS span state boundaries, making consistent regulation important. The proposed rule calls for "Director discretion" over a number of important issues. This flexibility is necessary because of geologic variability across the U.S., but should be balanced by inclusion of specific thresholds for action, to provide consistency. In other words, because of the potential for basin-scale, interstate interactions with GS, the primacy for Class VI wells should be more constrained

than for other well classes.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of allowing Director's discretion given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency. To ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits so that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235 Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23191

Comment: State Primacy

Montana-Dakota agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects. Many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCS activities, as are a number of western states. The EPA should consider potential issues related to projects that may span multiple states in light of primacy issues. The EPA should consider provisions in the rule for establishing a primary state for permitting purposes, with additional affected states provided an opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94. The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipatesthat State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Carter Jr. Letter ID: 0236 Commenter Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Comment ID: 23200

Comment: Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class VI wells as proposed under this rulemaking by EPA. Obtaining primacy will be an important component of our broader commitment to promote newer and cleaner markets for Indiana coal, oil, and natural gas while at the same time contributing to our nation's energy independence and to a cleaner environment.

Indiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources making it a prime location for the use of GS methods. Among these resources are the following: oil and gas reservoirs suitable for both enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term storage; unmineable coal seams for long-term storage and the potential for the production of coal bed methane (CH4) displaced by the injection of CO2 into these coals; deep saline reservoirs (Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone and Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone) suitable for long-term storage; and organic-rich shales (primarily Devonian New Albany) for long-term storage and the potential for enhanced production of CH4.

Our state also has a long history of the regulation of oil and gas production since development of oil and gas first began in 1886 with the discovery of the Trenton Field. Indiana also has primacy under the UIC Program for Class II wells and the (IDNR), Division of Oil and Gas has been effectively administering that program since 1991. Our regulatory experience also includes the permitting and oversight of underground natural gas storage facilities as well as facilities for the underground storage of liquefied petroleum gases.

Much of the technology and methodologies to be employed with the siting, drilling, construction, operation, testing, and eventually with the plugging and abandonment of Class VI wells, have been derived from the oil and gas industry. While there are differences between many aspects of Class VI injection wells when compared to Class II injection wells or underground natural gas and petroleum liquid storage wells, we believe there are far more similarities, including such aspects as reservoir selection, injection and withdrawal parameters, unauthorized releases, and pressure limitations. Accordingly, webelieve that Indiana is well prepared to effectively administer a regulatory program for the long-term storage of CO2 in underground formations once the appropriate state statutes and regulations are established.

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA.

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

Throughout the GS regulatory development process, EPA has made it a priority to engage States and State organizations. EPA works with State co-regulators on regulatory issues related to GS – including state representation on the GS regulatory development workgroup. The Agency has also conducted a series of stakeholder and technical workshops, and public hearings, and EPA met with national organizations including the Ground Water Protection Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the American Association of State Geologists. EPA values coordination with States and will continue an open dialogue as the Agency moves forward in the regulatory development process.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Carter Jr. Letter ID: 0236 Commenter Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Comment ID: 23207

Comment: Section V - How Will States, Territories, and Tribes Obtain UIC Program Primacy

for Class VI Wells?

Comment: Indiana strongly encourages EPA to allow states to seek primacy for the Class VI program independent of other UIC well classes.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent ClassVI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Angie Burckhalter Letter ID: 0239 Commenter Organization: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association Comment ID: 23215

Comment: In Oklahoma, oil and gas reservoirs provide a great capacity to store CO2. The State’s oil and gas agency has a long history of effectively regulating Class II wells since the early 1980s. EPA should allow a process for states like Oklahoma to easily obtain primacy for Class VI wells. In addition, states should have flexibility in determining which agency should regulate CO2 storage wells. For example, in Oklahoma, it would be more efficient and cost effective if the state oil and gas agency retained authority for all Class II EOR projects converted to Class VI CO2 storage projects and CO2 storage projects using depleted oil and gas reservoirs since this agency has the most knowledge and experience with those underground formations.

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA.Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23314 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3150 2.1.5 Comments on required permit information (40 CFR 146.82); 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed duration of Class VI permits (seeking comment)

Comment: • EPA - advised by experts and regional stakeholders - and not individual states, should make permitting decisions on CCS projects, at least for the first few years. • Permits should be issued in stages, to be adaptive to advances in knowledge, science and regulation, not for the operating life of the well.

Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to address the availability of new information and technology is appropriate. EPA plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects, including site characterization, operational, monitoring, and modeling data, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA disagrees that it should be the only entity to issue permits during the first few years after promulgation. EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and willbe able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA.

Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

EPA expects that both Headquarters and the Regions will work closely with the states during the early permitting process to ensure that flexibility is applied in a manner that ensures a consistent level of USDW protection from endangerment. EPA designed flexibility into the regulations to ensure that site-specific factors can be accounted for and expects that permit writers will use discretion where site-specific factors are important. As part of its adaptive approach, EPA also plans to review initial permits (after they are granted) to ensure that USDW protection goals have been consistently met across differing geologic situations. If necessary, EPA will reevaluate the flexibility granted to states in the rule. As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits so that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Regarding the commenter's request that permits be issued in stages, EPA clarifies that the final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23324

Comment: IV. EPA Should Administer the CCS Program with the Help of a Specially Formed CCS Technical Advisory Committee.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, delegated states can administer their ownunderground injection control ("UIC") programs once approved by EPA. Thirtythree states have primacy to run the UIC program and 7 states have authority to administer some UIC permits. [FN29] In states without primacy and on tribal lands, EPA administers the program.

[FN29: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. UIC Program Primacy, available at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/uic/primacy.html]

The proposed CCS rule would give the enormous responsibility of regulating CCS at this early stage to state administrators. As provided in the rule: "States with primacy must develop a program incorporating all new Federal requirementsfor Class VI wells if they wish to regulate CO2 GS, and all programs will be subject to EPA approval. If States do not develop a program for Class VI wells, EPA will oversee CO2 GS in those States." 73 Fed. Reg. 43,492, 43,530; see 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1(b)(1)(B) (requiring state showing of conformity to new requirements).

Permit decisions require evaluation of many complicated technical issues that demand a high level of expertise and there are scores of uncertainties at this early stage of CCS development, as explained above in the introduction to these comments. There is also cause for concern over the capacity and competency of some state regulatory agencies to properly regulate a CCS program. State permitting decisions can contradict science and logic and produce dangerous results for local health and welfare. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved the construction and operation of a facility designed to inject more than 112 million gallons of treated sewage a day, erroneously believing that the subsurface geology would prevent the injected sewage from migrating into the overlying Floridan Aquifer. Most experts agreed that the injection program should not have been permitted, and eventually the injected sewage migrated upward into the Floridan Aquifer. Even after evidence of contamination was well-established, Florida continued to expand its injection

program.

Federal administration coupled with a technical advisory board would ensure the initial implementation of a national CCS program will be based on the best science, insulate decisions from profit and political motives, facilitate good public perception of CCS and would ensure the long-term integrity of the program. The International Risk Governance Council stressed that "[a]ssignment of regulatory responsibility to competent and trustworthy bodies or agencies will be paramount in assuring the public that the technology is deployed with adequate oversight and safeguards." [FN30] A nationally administered program will also enable federal coordination of information for this young program, ensure information-sharing to other states and developing nations, and help manage regional issues that transcend state lines.

[FN30: IRGC, Regulation of Carbon Capture and Storage, p. 24, available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/Policy_Brief_CCS.pdf (last visited December 17, 2008).]

Over the last few years, there has been a global CCS dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders--with top scientists, engineers, industry and environmental groups working together to contribute to reports and policy suggestions. The IPCC is an international scientific body that provides an objective source of information. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines. [FN31] The World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, convened a diverse group of over 80 stakeholders, including representatives from academia, business, government, and environmental nongovernmental organizations to craft its Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage. [FN32] A technical advisory board would ensure this diversity of opinion and viewpoint is considered, and the expertise acquired in this dialogue isreflected, in the initial development and implementation of the United States’ CCS program.

[FN31: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm (last visited Dec. 15, 2008).] [FN32: http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_guidelines.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2008).]

The CCS technical board should include a diverse group of experts in CCS-related fields with CCS experience, including geology, geophysics, structural geology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry. Additionally, the board should dedicate a few flexible positions to include members with site-specific knowledge at the state, regional, and national levels that will rotate depending on project location. Alternatively, for local information, the technical board could coordinate with regional advisory boards formed pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 25.7.

The CCS technical board should have the following responsibilities, among other appropriate functions:

• review technical data and make recommendations for site selection and permit

terms • review monitoring data and make recommendations for permit revisions • fact checking • ensuring coordination among permits • accelerating and disseminating best practices • make decisions regarding delegation of primacy

Technical advisory boards are well-respected by the public and environmental community and work well in other contexts. The Desert Tortoise Recovery Committee is made up of a diverse group of scientific experts and serves an advisory role to agency administers to ensure species’ recovery plans, revisions, monitoring, effectiveness, etc. meet rigorous scientific standards. [FN33] The Independent Scientific Advisory Board serves the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), Columbia River Indian Tribes, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council by providing independent scientific advice and recommendations regarding scientific issues that relate to the respective agencies' fish and wildlife programs. [FN34]

[FN33: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_sac.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2008).] [FN34: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/background.htm and http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/members.htm (last visited Dec. 15, 2008).]

The success or failure of CCS cannot rest on the decisions of state administrators like the ones in Florida responsible for the sewage injection debacle. "'[A] single major accident, resulting from inadequate regulatory oversight, anywhere in the world, could seriously endanger the future viability of GS [geologic sequestration]." [FN35] EPA must take responsibility for administration of the nation’s CCS program, at least for the first few years until the task becomes less extraordinary. Agency officials will need help interpreting and understanding the technical data that will accompany permit decisions, and it should enlist the help of a diverse group of CCS experts on atechnical advisory board.

[FN35: Wilson, E., Morgan, M. et al., Regulating the Geological Sequestration of CO2, Environmental Science & Technology, Apr. 15, 2008, at p. 5.]

Response: As described above, EPA disagrees that it should be the only entity to issue permits during the first few years after promulgation and believes it is contrary to the SDWA.

EPA will consult with the National Drinking Water Advisor Committee, associations and organizations, EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and experts; review permits; and continue to hold workshops to build expertise and ensure that implementation of the national program is based on the best available science. The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Regarding unintended consequences related to municipal disposal wells in Florida, EPA clarifies that this is outside the scope of this rulemaking and that GS is quite different from the injection of wastewater in Florida. An owner or operator seeking to characterize a site similar to one used for municipal disposal in Florida for GS (pursuant to the requirements at §146.82) and to identify both injection formations and suitable confining units (per §146.83) might not be able to meet the requirements and ensure protection of USDWs due to the nature of karst formations/geology. In addition, the computational modeling required to delineate the AoR at §146.84 for a GS project would likely predict inappropriate buoyant flow in this example and eliminate such formations as potential GS sites.

Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja Letter ID: 0248 Commenter Organization:Western Energy Supply and Transmission

Associates Comment ID:

22249 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment)

Comment:– EPA's proposed UIC for CO2 GS rule needs to fully respect states' expertise in administering the current SDWA programs. The UIC for CO2 GS program needs to provide a reasonable process whereby individual states can obtain permitting and compliance primacy over regulation of EPA's proposed Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states already administer SDWA programs and a number of states are moving ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues associated with CCS. However, EPA will need to consider how to handle projects that span multiple states, tribal lands, and other agency jurisdictions as commented earlier. EPA could establish a primary state in such multiple jurisdiction affected projects, along with a permitting and coordination process for permitting purposes would engage other affected states in providing for notice and comment by all stakeholders. This same principle may be applied to multiple agency jurisdictions, such as the BLM, the NPS, and other agencies.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree offlexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94. The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions and plans, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name:James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249 Commenter Organization:Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22265 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment)

Comment: 6. Respect State Primacy on SDWA Permitting - EPA should respect states’ expertise in administering the SDWA, by providing a reasonable process whereby they can obtain primacy over regulation of Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states already administer SDWA programs and have long experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II EOR programs. Further, a number of states aremoving ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues associated with CCS -- incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of potentially affected property rights as two examples.

Clearly, in determining state primacy, EPA will have to consider how to handle projects that span multiple states. We do not believe that issue to be insurmountable. Rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a primary state for permitting purposes, with other affected states provided an opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, and Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federalcriteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22287

Comment: Funding and resources for the UIC Program

Although not directly addressed in the EPA proposal, the need for adequate resources to implement the regulatory program for geologic sequestration at both the federal and state levels is a major consideration and one that EPA should be addressing both internally and in its discussions with Congress. The annual national budget for the UIC program (approximately $11 million) has remained static for many years, while UIC agencies have been asked to take on additional responsibilities. Furthermore, inflation of salaries and other expenses has eroded the buying power of the unchanging UIC budget. If state and regional agencies are asked to take on the additional workload of CO2 injection, while ensuring careful scientific review as well as an efficient processing time, they will require additional trained staff and other resources.

Significant additional resources will need to be made available to hire new permitting staff and field inspectors. Those new staff, along with existing UIC staff, must be trained in subjects that will enable them to make prudent permitting, management, and oversight decisions. EPA and states will need to be adequately prepared to review applications and make permitting decisions. Failure to provide sufficient resources will likely create permitting backlogs

or result in suboptimal permits being issued.

The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) estimated in 2004 that an annual funding increase to $56 million would be needed just to meet the needs of the existing UIC program at the state level even without the addition of GS project permitting.[FN19] GWPC has further estimated that EPA will need to provide funding at a level of $100 million annually to meet the needs for the full UIC program, including the regulation of geologic sequestration.

[FN19: GWPC, Class V Resource Needs Survey, Summary (September 2004).]

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the States to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matchingrequirement.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24966

Comment: EPA Notice Questions: 73 FR 43523

EPA Rule Issue: 48. To gain authority for Class VI wells, States, Territories, and Tribes will be required to show that their regulations are at least as stringent as, and may be more stringent than, the proposed minimum Federal requirements (e.g., inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that well owners or operators must meet). Such Primacy States, Territories, and Tribes are authorized under Section 1422 of the SDWA. EPA

Notice 43523.

GWPC CO2 Committee Response: Retain current requirement, but recognize that geology varies from state to state and some modifications may be appropriate that will result in variations that are not less stringent, but simply adapted to different circumstances. There should also be some recognition that the beneficial effects of GS may be enhanced by allowing flexibility for adaptation of state requirements.

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. The GS rule sets forth minimum requirements, 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 flexibility 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. Such requirements where the Director has discretion include whether to require owners or operators to identify 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-injection site care timeframeas part of the permitting process, as specified in §146.93. The GS rule balances the need for sitespecific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency and USDW protection from endangerment while also ensuring that states have the data they need to make permitting decisions. EPA Headquarters also plans to review initial permits to ensure that the final rule, including all permitting decisions, are implemented consistently, and to ensure that USDW protection goals are consistently met across differing geologic situations.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22788

Comment: A. Funding: It is essential that EPA provide adequate funding to states assuming primacy jurisdiction under the UIC program to administer CO2 storage regulatory

activities.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Mark Vickery Letter ID: 0280 Commenter Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Comment ID: 24112

Comment: Also, with primary responsibility for carbon geo-sequestration residing with EPA until an application for state primacy is approved, it will be in the mutual interests of EPA and applying states, to make the state primacy process more efficient. In TCEQ's experience, revisions of UIC program primacy (authorization) which have been relatively limited in scope and complexity have required years for development and approval.

Opportunities for streamlining the Class VI primacy process may be achieved by redesigning the review and approval processes coordinated between EPA regions and headquarters. Also, for consideration by states, the primacy process could be made easier for state and EPA staff, to the extent that federal regulations can be adopted verbatim, minimizing or eliminating the complicated "crosswalk" process for determining rule-for-rule equivalency. As an additional consideration, the possibility of optional interim authorization of a state program, or delegation of responsibility by EPA to states under a memorandum of agreement until primacy is approved, should be explored.

Response: EPA agrees that opportunities exist to streamline primacy application process. The final GS rule includes new regulatory language at §145.22 and §145.23 to streamline and clarify the process for submission of Class VI primacy applications and address the unique aspect of Class VI injection operations. For example, EPA is allowing the electronic submission of required primacy application information (e.g., letter from the Governor, program description, Attorney General’s statement, or Memorandum of Agreement). The Agency is also allowing the use of existing reporting form(s) for Class VI wells, as appropriate.

Additionally, to address the unique nature of Class VI injection operations, the final rule at §145.23(f) includes new language describing the requirements for Class VI State Program descriptions. Specifically, §145.23(f)(13) requires States to describe in their primacy applications procedures for notifying any States, Tribes, and Territories of Class VI permit applications where the AoR is predicted to cross jurisdictional boundaries and for documenting this consultation. This new requirement addresses comments on the proposed rule and NODA and Request for Comment that Class VI operations are likely to have larger AoRs that may cross jurisdictional boundaries and necessitate trans-boundary coordination. Other additions in the final rule at §145.23(f) clarify the requirements for State Program descriptions, which must include information regarding the schedule, priorities for, and number of permits to be issued in the first two years of program operation. These changes ensure expeditious implementation of nationally consistent Class VI requirements.

EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available athttp://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA will work closely with States, Tribes, and Territories to ensure timely approval of Class VI primacy applications.

Commenter Name: Mark Vickery Letter ID: 0280 Commenter Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Comment ID: 24113

Comment: (4) Resource Needs for Regulation of the Proposed New Class of Wells-As described in

the Ground Water Report to the Nation: A Call to Action (Ground Water Protection Council, 2007), the great challenges for the UIC Program are the need to effectively address higher risk Class V wells, and readiness to regulate waste streams from emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage. In either case, the principal obstacle is the insufficiency of funding for state UIC programs. In congressional testimony, GWPC has recommended an increase in annual funding for the national UIC Program to $56 million, nearly a five-fold increase over present appropriations. While the full scope of resources needed for implementing a Class VI well program is not presently known, needs will be particularly acute in the following areas:

Additional Staff -In addition to staff needed for regulation of the existing injection well classes, more qualified persons will be needed to conduct rulemaking for state equivalency with the new federal regulations, develop program procedures, form, and other documents for Class VI, assemble program authorization packages for submittal to EPA, and conduct permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement of Class VI wells.

Additional Tools (Computer Models for Simulation of Multi-Phase Interactions in Determining Fate and Transport of Injected CO2) -The central role, iterative nature, and unprecedented complexity of computational modeling and monitoring of the injected CO2 plume and pressure front in nearly every consideration in a CO2-GS project will require additional developmental work and funding to provide the specialized computer models, monitoring instruments, and other tools needed by state and EPA regional staff for regulation of Class VI wells.

Guidance and Training in Implementation of Class VI Requirements -In the interest of regulatory flexibility and avoidance of unnecessary constraints in development of the technology through overly prescriptive specification of materials and methods, EPA's proposed rules feature a series of plans that an applicant for a Class VI permit must submit for director approval. Among the plans required that are unique or require special considerations in application to a Class VI well project are the area of review and corrective action plan, the monitoring plan, and the post-injection site care and closure plan. Under the proposed rules, the adequacy of any such plans would be a matter of director discretion. Practically, this would include public participation in a permitting or permit amendment process. While it is appropriate that EPA has provided with each requirement of a plan, a list of considerations in evaluating the plan, more specific guidance and training on such plans including the use and evaluation of models and monitoring data will be needed for efficient regulation. The need for guidance and training will be greatest in the first commercial scale CO2-GS projects in the early phase of rule implementation.Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated with GS. EPA will coordinate with and assist states, e.g., through guidance and on-line and in-person training, to help them address problematic technical and policy issues.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

EPA is developing a Class VI program primacy application and implementation manual that describes, for States, the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA. The manual will also provide tools designed to assist States with the development of their primacy application and UIC Directors with evaluating permit application information. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0291 Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council Comment ID: 25291

Comment: • A separate injection class or subclass with appropriate site characterization, operation, monitoring and closure provisions should govern all injection in hydrocarbon reservoirs for the (sole or concurrent) purpose of GS as defined above (which includes earning carbon credits) and injection that exceeds business-as-usual Class II volume, pressure or other key thresholds that result in greater risk;

• The primacy delegation criteria for this class or subclass should be subject to the primacy delegation requirements that apply to Class VI as proposed, and not to the more general showing used for Class II; and

Response: EPA clarifies that Class VI wells are regulated under Section 1422 of SDWA, and adds that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the

final GS rule.

In order for States, Tribes, or Territories to obtain Primacy for Class VI wells (under Section 1422 of the SDWA) they must demonstrate that they have requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal Class VI requirements; have the authority to inspect and assess construction and operation of the wells as well as have the necessary legal authorities to take administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions required by the SDWA under §1423, impose criminal, civil, and administrative penalties on owners and operators for non-compliance with regulatory requirements; and demonstrate sufficient/appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, and technical expertise) to implement their Class VI program.

EPA agrees that a separate well classification is appropriate for GS and that tailored requirements forClass VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520 Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21418

Comment: I would also like to start out by addressing couple of issues that are perhaps technically outside the scope of this rulemaking. They may not actually affect the wording of the rule, but they are certainly relevant to the subject.

First I would like to agree with Doug Louis of the Kansas Corporation Commission and also the people from the Department of Environmental Quality of Wyoming that it is essential that this program be funded adequately both at the federal, but also at the state level. In round numbers, state UIC agencies currently get about ten million dollars from the federal government to administer these programs. It has been estimated that they really need even under the current regulatory system, something more like fifty million dollars and it has further been estimated that for the state programs to do a good job both with the existing UIC classes and Class VI that they may need something more in the order of a hundred million dollars and I realize you people at the table do not have a hundred million dollars handy, but I think that is a very important policy issue that perhaps the EPA could help highlight with Congress.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Letter ID: 0525 Commenter Organization:Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comment ID: 21393

Comment: First of all, let me start with a few general comments on EPA's proposed approach. With respect to funding, EPA funding to states to administer federal environmental programs such as the underground injection control program continues to decline in terms of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country alone, substantial additional skills and resources would be required at the state level in order to develop and implement effective permitting and oversight programs. It is imperative that EPA recognize that need and begin to consider establishing special provisions to set aside and identify funds specifically for the use by states and tribes thatthey will need in order to effectively develop and operate these types of permitting programs.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Doug Louis Letter ID: 0530 Commenter Organization: Kansas Corporation Commission Comment ID: 21349

Comment: In conclusion, it is our vote the EPA will fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states to administer the program. The 1425 program re-administer is not fully funded and has seen cuts each year for the past three fiscal years. It has also become increasingly difficult for states to manage numerous programs that demand increasing budgets, but undergo annual funding decreases.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Mike Moore Letter ID: 0532 Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association (NACCSA) Comment ID:

21372

Comment: The sixth area of concern relates to primacy or to state primacy for proposed Class VI wells. EPA can accelerate the deployment of CCS while allowing states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells without obtaining primacy for the entire UIC program. Numerous states have established their own CCS regulations and their expertise should be relied upon.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPAbelieves that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0534 Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Comment ID: 21466

Comment: And I would like to close with one final comment. Even if we do write the perfect rule text via its effective implementation really does rest on capacity building and funding, not just the federal agency level, but at the state agency level. I think now is the time to be thinking about it and to put requirements in place and sufficient funding in place, for states and for federal and regional offices to gear up and be up to date with these rules and capable of administering them effectively.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges

associated with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Leslie Savage Letter ID: 0122 Commenter Organization: Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) Comment ID: 24743

Comment: Delegation of Primacy Congress mandated, through Section 1421(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), that, to the extent feasible, EPA avoid promulgating requirements that would unnecessarily disrupt State UIC programs already in effect and being enforced in a substantial number of States.

The EPA has indicated that it will delegate the program under Section 1422 of the SDWA. The RRC agrees with EPA that it is in the best interest of protecting groundwater resources for the geologic sequestration of CO2 to be regulated at the state level. However, any requirement by EPA that states accept primacy for Class I, III and V wells as a condition for obtaining primacy for Class VI wells will create an unreasonable burden upon states. This matter needs to be clarified in the rule. In addition, any requirement by EPA that states with primacy for Class I, III, and V wells also accept primacy for Class VI wells will unnecessarily disrupt the states’ existing UIC programs and will compromise the states’ ability to decide how best to administer the state’s program. In addition, EPA should allow for split delegation in the Class VI program, as it has in Texas for the Class III program, to allow the state to best determine how to implement the Class VI program. Furthermore, EPA should not be allowed to reopen any state’s primacy over other well classes in order for a state to obtain primacy for the Class VI well program.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be providedthe 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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

In addition, EPA recognizes that some states may not have appropriate geology for sequestering CO2, and these states should be able to retain primacy for other well classes without incurring the cost and burden of adopting primacy changes to address the new Class VI well requirements. EPA also clarifies that a state’s application for primacy for Class VI wells will not affect the status of that state’s primacy for other well classes under the UIC program.

Commenter Name:John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21515 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: Primacy for Class VI Wells

-There are no statutory limitations to EPA granting primacy to states for individual classes of underground injection wells; however, EPA typically refuses to do so by policy. Pennsylvania requests that EPA allow separable primacy for the proposed Class VI UIC well program, to secure that option. Resources to conduct the program continue to be the issue for any state considering primacy of the UIC program. Federal appropriations have been stagnant for over a decade at $10 million for the national program. Pennsylvania is concerned that EPA may not be able to secure the funding necessary to develop a robust Class VI well program that includes on-the-ground resources for non-primacy states.

-Adequate resources must be made available to effectively develop and implement a program for this added category of UIC well that is this significantly different from other UIC well types.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intendedto encourage States to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name:Jill D. Jonas Letter ID: 0135 Commenter Organization:Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources (WDNR) Comment ID: 21668

Comment: Primacy for Class VI Injection Wells

As the state agency which currently regulates all injection well classes in the State of Wisconsin, WDNR urges EPA to allow primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of the other well classes. First, such an approach provides state permitting authorities the flexibility to implement a more comprehensive approach to managing the capture, transportation, and sequestration of CO2.Second, some states already have one agency responsible for a Class H program and have another agency managing the other four existing injection well classes. Independent approval enables each state to determine if it is more suitable and cost effective to have one of those agencies or an alternative state agency administer the CO2 GS program separately from the UIC programs established for other injection well classes. Third, independent approval of Class VI injection well program primacy more clearly defines the criteria and primacy application process for those states that seek primary enforcement authority for GS and makes the administrative review and approval of state primacy applications for GS more manageable for EPA.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. For example, in most States, the Class II program is run by an oil and gas agency and other well classes are run by a State environmental agency (e.g., the Oklahoma Corporation Commission oversees Class II wells in the State, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality oversees other well classes). Additionally, several States allow their oil and gas agencies toadminister their UIC program for specific well classes or subclasses provided they meet all Federal requirements (e.g., the Texas Railroad Commission oversees Class III brine-mining wells and Class V geothermal wells in Texas). EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153 Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Comment ID:

22139

Comment: 4. South Dakota recommends that EPA allow states to gain regulatory primacy of UIC Class VI wells without having to also take primacy for the other UIC classes in Section 1422 of the SDWA. Class VI wells actually appear more closely related

to UIC Class II wells in Section 1425 of the SDWA than those in Section 1422.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.Commenter Name: M. Michael Rounds Letter ID: 0159 Commenter Organization: Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) Comment ID: 22230

Comment: Role of states in GS regulation Several of our states in the MGA region have experience with the injection of carbon dioxide through Class II and Class V wells. Further, some of our jurisdictions have experience with legal and regulatory aspects of managing CO2 injection wells. We encourage the EPA to consider approval for states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells, independent of other well classes. The MGA agrees with the EPA in the preamble that this may encourage states to take a more comprehensive approach to managing each stage of a CCS project (e.g., capture, transportation, and sequestration) (73 FR 43523).

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Sandi Tabor Letter ID: 0162 Commenter Organization: Lignite Energy Council (LEC) Comment ID: 21307Comment: 7. State Class VI Well primacy -Presently, North Dakota has primacy for the UIC program. The state is in the process of developing the statutory framework for regulating the long-term GS of CO2. If passed by the 2009 ND Legislative Assembly, regulations for GS will be promulgated in 2009. As such, North Dakota will have a program in place that can be modified as needed to implement a future EPA program. We encourage EPA to allow state primacy to regulate Class VI UIC wells regardless of whether or not the state has primacy for other UIC

programs.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).Commenter Name:James Stine Letter ID: 0163 Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comment ID:

21326 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: 5. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that will facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program.

For these reasons, NRECA believes it is appropriate to allow states to obtain primacy for the entire UIC program or for only Class VI wells if a particular state so chooses. Id. at 43523. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program, and as EPA predicts, states obtaining primacy for Class VI wells -- regardless of whether they have sought primacy under other aspects of the UIC program -- may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 (SDWA § 1422).

Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC programs including programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under Section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells

under Section 1422 of SDWA.

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

Throughout the GS regulatory development process, EPA has made it a priority to engage States and State organizations. EPA works with State co-regulators on regulatory issues related to GS – including state representation on the GS regulatory development workgroup. The Agency has also conducted a series of stakeholder and technical workshops, and public hearings, and EPA met with national organizations including the Ground Water Protection Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the American Association of State Geologists. EPA values coordination with States and State co-regulators and will continue an open dialogue as the Agency moves forward in the regulatory development process.

As described above, EPA plans to allow States to apply for primacy for the Class VI program independently of primacy for other well classes.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23409Comment:With respect to the integration of State programs, APPA agrees with EPA that the Final Rule should create a delegable program and encourage the adoption and implementation of that program by States. APPA realizes that some states have no experience with oil and gas use of CO2 but encourages all states to adopt the program. Adopting the program does not automatically presume that all power plants built and operated in those states will be able to conduct geologic sequestration in that state. Id. at 43497. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that can facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program. For these reasons, APPA also believes it is appropriate to allow States to obtain primacy for only Class VI wells if a particular State so chooses. Id. at 43523. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program, and EPA correctly predicts that States obtaining primacy for Class VI wells, regardless of whether they have sought primacy under other aspects of the UIC program, may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 (SDWA § 1422). Simply put, APPA is not trying to force states to have Class I and Class II UIC programs in order to have Class VI programs. States may well decide that they still are not comfortable with a Class II or Class I UIC program. APPA has no desire to change those state policies through this UIC rulemaking.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacyapproval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24129

Comment: State Primacy

API contends that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. Accordingly, states should be permitted to seek primacy for the Class VI program, even in the absence of primacy for other well classes (partial primacy). Numerous states have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II programs, and those states in particular may have much to offer in the context of Class VI wells. A critical component of the primacy delegation process is for EPA to ensure that States will be adequately funded to deal with the increased burdens associated with managing the Class VI program. Conversely, some states may not have formations with the necessary geologic characteristics to allow GS and so may want to pass on obtaining primacy for this program.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting theintegration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA recognizes that some states may not have appropriate geology for sequestering CO2, and these states should be able to retain primacy for other well classes without incurring the cost and burden of adopting primacy changes to address the new Class VI well requirements.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA also acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24213

Comment: EPA Preamble Question: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

API Response: API supports the implementation of partial primacy for Class VI separately from other classes of wells.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility forimplementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24266

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523, 73 FR 43529 EPA Preamble Question: 49. There may be benefits to parsing out primacy for Class VI wells, however EPA has not made a decision on this. Allowing States, Territories, and Tribes to acquire primacy for only Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of

other well classes. EPA Notice 43523.

API Response: API supports the implementation of partial primacy for Class VI separately from other classes of wells. The geologic variation across the country justifies partial primacy.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.Commenter Name:James Taft Letter ID: 0172 Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Comment ID:

23458 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: State Primacy Considerations:

EPA should investigate options for state primacy considerations under SDWA 1425 to regulate the new class VI wells for carbon sequestration independently of other well classes. As the proposed rule is currently written, it precludes states that only have primacy on Class II wells.

Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1425 of SDWA allows an alternative primacy demonstration only for programs regulating injection wells associated with oil and gas recovery or natural gas storage. Therefore, wells used for the purpose of GS cannot be covered under Section 1425. While EPA acknowledges that states that have not obtained primacy under SDWA Section 1422 for other well classes may be less familiar with implementing the UIC program under that section of the Act, the Agency does not believe this would preclude their ability to effectively obtain and implement primacy for Class VI wells. EPA does not intend to limit primacy of Class VI wells to only states with primacy for Class II wells—any state that can demonstrate in its primacy application that it has developed regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) in the final GS rule will be granted primacy for Class VI wells.

EPA also plans to support states as needed to help them develop and implement their Class VI programs. EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI independently of other well classes regardless of whether or not they have primacy for other well classes. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories to describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name:James Rower Letter ID: 0173 Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23475 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment:With respect to the integration of state programs, USWAG agrees that the Final Rule should create a delegable program and encourage the adoption and implementation of that program by states. Id. at 43497. Our members' experiences with Class V experimental CO2 wells underscore the benefits of regulation on a state level. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that will facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program. For these reasons, it is appropriate to allow states to obtain primacy for only Class VI wells if a particular state so chooses. Id. at 43523. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program and EPA is correct in predictingthat states obtaining primacy for Class VI wells - regardless of whether they have sought primacy for other well classes under the UIC program - may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 300h-1 (SDWA § 1422).

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for States to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23558 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: Regarding whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, EEI agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. Further, many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCS activities. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells (in particular, allowing them to take on primacy for Class VI without assuming the regulatory burden that may be associated with other well classes) will help ensure that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work on CCS.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) inthe final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177 Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23604 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: I. State Primacy Provisions

The proposed rules seek comment on whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, noting the Agency‘s belief that "the most effective approach for the comprehensive management of CO2 GS projects would be achieved at the State and Tribal level." EEI agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. Numerous states have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II programs, and those states in particular may have much to offer in the context of Class IV wells. Further, many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCS activities--in many cases laws and rules that go beyond the scope of EPA‘s jurisdiction, such as incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of potentially affected property rights. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells (in particular, allowing them to take on primacy for Class VI without assuming the regulatory burden that may be associated with other well classes) will help ensure that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work on CCS. EEI supports increased funding for those states that have primacy for Class VI wells to ensure that sufficient resources exist to review appropriately the complex permit applications GS projects will entail.

EEI also encourages the Agency to consider potential issues related to projects that may span multiple states in light of primacy issues. Under such circumstances the rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a primary state for permitting purposes, with additional affected states provided an opportunity for notice and comment.

Response: As described above, EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI wells independently of primacy for other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

In response to the question about which state or region would oversee the permit for projects where the AoR spans State, Tribal or Territorial boundaries, EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well islocated.

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining primacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. EPA is developing primacy implementation materials for states that describe trans-boundary issues that should be addressed in permitting Class VI wells under the GS regulation. The materials will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in §146.94).The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and expects that State-State/StateTribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23713

Comment: EPA Request for Comment: EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of

other well classes. EPA Notice 43523.

AWWA Response: AWWA recommends that a state be able to administer only Class VI well permits, if they so desire. The Class VI well program is a very specialized class, which has major differences from all the other well classes. A state that decides to apply for primacy of the Class VI wells only would be able to specialize in this well class, and could develop and execute a very detailed program. The state would have an advantage in that the state staff would be very familiar with the regional geology, water resources and business operations in the areas proposed for geologic sequestration. One disadvantage could be seen if the applying state had never held primacy for any of the other classes of wells. Since this is a fairly specialized class, there could be some logistical issues in the beginning stages of the state administering the program. However, AWWA believes that these issues could be addressed through consultation with either the federal EPA offices, or in discussions with other states that are administering the Class VI program. In our opinion, the benefits associated with state primacy, such as a more in depth knowledge of the state geology, operations and politics far outweighs any minor implementation issues that might be associated with a state having primacy approval for only Class VI wells.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications forindividual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA agrees that states without primacy for other injection well classes may encounter some logistical challenges while developing a new Class VI primacy program. EPA is developing guidance that describes, for States, the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA. The manual will also provide tools designed to assist States with the development of their primacy application and UIC Directors with evaluating permit application information. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA also encourages States, Tribes, and Territories to consult with their EPA Region or other States, Tribes, and Territories administering the Class VI program for guidance as they begin the primacy application process and develop a UIC program for Class VI wells.

Commenter Name: Ginny Brannon Letter ID: 0182 Commenter Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environment Comment ID:

23753 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wellsComment: The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the underground injection control program. These states, referred to as Primacy States, must meet the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs, including construction, operating, monitoring, testing, reporting, and closure requirements for well owners or operators.

Additionally, the SDWA allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such as for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under Section 1422, or for Class II wells only under Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells only.

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of carbon dioxide. It is our contention that states should be able to seek primacy for Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now. Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and the proposed Class VI wells are similar in purpose and particularly suited as ‘stand

alone’ classes of wells.

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to assume primacy for Class VI wells.

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is critically important for effective implementation of the Class VI regulation. EPA acknowledges thatsuch expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university systems, such as in state universities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise will benefit implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide.

Commenter Name: Bradley J. Field Letter ID: 0186 Commenter Organization: New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Div. of Mineral Resources Comment ID:

25171

Comment: A. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking.

NYSDEC-DMN Response: While the UIC program in New York State is directly implemented at this time, many other states currently have primacy jurisdiction and administer Class II and other wells. Primacy should be allowed solely for Class VI, and such should be structured to allow flexibility in the primacy process and defer to the state rule when it effectively meets the intent of the federal requirements.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to thenew requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Bradley J. Field Letter ID: 0186 Commenter Organization: New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Div. of Mineral Resources Comment ID:

25217

Comment: SS. EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of other well classes.

NYSDEC- DMN Response: NYSDEC-DMN supports the creation of a separate class VI for GS wells and strongly supports allowing state primacy solely for Class VI. In addition, states should have the authority to designate which agency in the state can apply for and be granted primacy.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum Federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. For example, in most States, the Class II program is run by an oil and gas agency and other well classes are run by a State environmental agency (e.g., the Oklahoma Corporation Commission oversees Class II wells in the State, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality oversees other well classes). Additionally, several States allow their oil and gas agencies to administer their UIC program for specific well classes or subclasses provided they meet all Federal requirements (e.g., the Texas Railroad Commission oversees Class III brine-mining wells and Class V geothermal wells in Texas). EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24506

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 73 FR 43497 EPA Preamble Question: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

CSC Response: Use state approaches as examples to support recommendations where appropriate. As EPA moves toward finalizing this rule, EPA should monitor state rulemaking to assess the extent to which its rule needs to afford state Director’s the flexibility to account for regional differences. We also support the implementation of separate primacy for Class VI separately from otherclasses of wells.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Throughout the process of this rulemaking EPA has been keeping track of individual state legislative regulatory approaches. The Agency recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA considered those legislative approaches that are within the scope of the SDWA while finalizing this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24558

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 73 FR 43523, 73 FR 43529 EPA Preamble Question: 49. There may be benefits to parsing out primacy forClass VI wells, however EPA has not made a decision on this. Allowing States, Territories, and Tribes to acquire primacy for only Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of

other well classes. EPA Notice 43523.

CSC Response: CSC supports separate primacy for Class VI. The geologic variation across the country justifies separate primacy determinations. The final rule should also preserve state authority to determine what agencies will exercise primacy. Moreover, EPA should provide adequate funding, which will require a substantial increase above current funding levels both to meet existing program needs and to provide the additional resources anticipated to be necessary for the Class VI program. These increases need to be provided in time to ramp up of resources, personnel, and training in advance of the anticipated heavy demand.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency willimplement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (nonClass II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum Federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. For example, in most States, the Class II program is run by an oil and gas agency and other well classes are run by a State environmental agency (e.g., the Oklahoma Corporation Commission oversees Class II wells in the State, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality oversees other well classes). Additionally, several States allow their oil and gas agencies to administer their UIC program for specific well classes or subclasses provided they meet all Federal requirements (e.g., the Texas Railroad Commission oversees Class III brine-mining wells and Class V geothermal wells in Texas). EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24568

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43497 EPA Rule Issue: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: APC supports the implementation of partial primacy for Class VI separately from other classes of wells.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24620

Comment: Rule Provisions: 73 FR 43523, 73 FR 43529 EPA Rule Issue: 49. There may be benefits to parsing out primacy for Class VI wells, however EPA has not made a decision on this. Allowing States,Territories, and Tribes to acquire primacy for only Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of

other well classes. EPA Notice 43523.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: APC supports the implementation of partial primacy for Class VI separately from other classes of wells. The geologic variation across the country justifies partial primacy.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

Commenter Name:John Corra Letter ID: 0205 Commenter Organization:Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Comment ID:

22190

Comment: 2. Primacy for Class VI Wells: The US EPA should allow for separate delegation of primacy to the states and tribes for Class VI wells unless the state or tribe requests that the delegation be made part of their existing UIC program for Class I, II, III or V wells.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Michael Stroben Letter ID: 0209 Commenter Organization: Duke Energy Comment ID: 22688

Comment: STATE PRIMACY

The proposed rule seeks comment on whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, noting the Agency’s belief that "the most effective approach for the comprehensive management of CO2 GS projects would be achieved at the State and Tribal level." Duke Energy believes it is appropriate to allow States to obtain primacy for only Class VI wells. States should play a key role in managing CO2 GS projects going forward, as they have with Class II wells for decades. The experience states have gained by regulating CO2 injection through the existing programs can offer many benefits in the context of Class VI wells. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that can facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program. Further, some states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to carbon capture and storage ("CCS") activities--in many cases developing laws and rules that include unique provisions and provide incentives for the development of new CCS projects. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells (in particular, allowing them to take on primacy for Class VI wells without assuming the regulatory burden that may be associated with other well classes) will help ensure that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work

in this area.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting theintegration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Barbara Walz Letter ID: 0216 Commenter Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc. Comment ID:

22967

Comment: B. State regulators have familiarity with local environmental, geologic, and financial concerns, and in many cases have pre-existing relationships with the regulated community that will facilitate implementation of a new and complex regulatory program. For these reasons, Tri-State believes it is also appropriate to allow states to obtain primacy for only Class VI wells if a particular state so chooses. Such class-specific primacy is consistent with the statutory authorization behind the UIC Program, and as EPA predicts, states obtaining primacy for Class VI wells -regardless of whether they have sought primacy under other aspects of the UIC program -may be more likely to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for all aspects of carbon capture and storage.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy forClass I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0217 Commenter Organization:Xcel Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 21556 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: State Primacy

Xcel Energy supports the concept of state primacy. States should have theability to obtain delegated authority for Class VI wells only, as opposed to being required to develop delegable programs for all classes of wells. As noted by EEI and USWAG, permitting decisions are best made at the state level where knowledge of local conditions and public concerns is the greatest. In addition, it is essential that the final rule establish a "lead state" concept for projects where the AoR may cross state boundaries. Xcel Energy supports assigning the project permitting lead role to the state where the Class VI

wellhead is located.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal or Territorial) or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, EPA Regional, or national boundaries. The final GS rule, at 146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide writtennotification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application 146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan (146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects.

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23223 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment)

Comment: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission has drafted legislation concerning capture and storage of carbon dioxide to be acted upon during the upcoming legislative session in January 2009. This legislation was crafted using the IOGCC model. If the legislation is enacted, administrative rules will be promulgated. As with most regulatory programs, the states are best qualified to take state-specific issues into account and to tailor the regulatory needs to fit their unique circumstances. To this end, partial primacy for Class VI wells is imperative.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23271

Comment: 48. To gain authority for Class VI wells, States, Territories, and Tribes will be required to show that their regulations are at least as stringent as, and may be more stringent than, the proposed minimum Federal requirements (e.g., inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that well owners or operators must meet). Such Primacy States, Territories, and Tribes

are authorized under Section 1422 of the SDWA. EPA Notice 43523.

Partial primacy should be granted for Class VI wells independently of other well classes and through a process similar to granting primacy under existing UIC classes, allowing the states to determine the appropriate regulating agency.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23272

Comment: 49. There may be benefits to parsing out primacy for Class VI wells, however EPA has not made a decision on this. Allowing States, Territories, and Tribes to acquire primacy for only Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of other well

classes. EPA Notice 43523.Partial primacy should be granted for Class VI wells independently of other well classes allowing the states to determine the appropriate regulating agency. This will encourage states to apply for primacy.

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

Commenter Name:Walter L. Baker Letter ID: 0253 Commenter Organization: Utah Division of Water Quality Comment ID: 22355

Comment: PRIMACY OF CLASS VI WELLS

We encourage EPA to allow primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of the other classes of injection wells. This would allow the state agency that is best positioned for implementing the Class VI program to apply for primacy for the program or to apply for an amendment to an existing primacy application. This would facilitate the rapid deployment of commercial- scale CCGS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy forall other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24811

Comment: RESOLUTION 08-1

REGARDING DELEGATION OF PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO STATES FOR

THE GEOSEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has determined the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide is a process that falls within the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Underground Injection Control (UIC) program; and

WHEREAS, the USEPA has developed a proposed federal rule under the UIC program to regulate the practice of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide; and

WHEREAS, the USEPA has proposed the creation of a new injection well class for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration injection wells with the designation of Class VI; and

WHEREAS, upon adoption of a federal rule states will lack primacy enforcement authority (Primacy) for Class VI wells until such authority is delegated to the states by USEPA; and

WHEREAS, the USEPA has indicated the delegation of primacy for Class VI wells will fall under the authority of Section 1422 of the SDWA; and

WHEREAS, it is the current practice of USEPA to only delegate primacy under Section 1422 of the SDWA if a state accepts primacy for all well classes other than Class II wells; and

WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of protecting ground water resources for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide to be regulated at the state level; and

WHEREAS, the GWPC is an association of state administrators of undergroundinjection control and ground water protection programs that will be responsible for administering programs for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide; and

WHEREAS, any requirement by USEPA that states accept primacy for Class I, III, IV and V wells, as a condition for obtaining primacy for Class VI wells will create an unreasonable burden upon states; and

WHEREAS, any requirement by USEPA that states with primacy for Class I, III, IV and V wells also accept primacy for Class VI wells will compromise the states ability to decide how best to administer the states UIC program and may unnecessarily disrupt the states’ UIC program;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the GWPC recommends USEPA provide for the voluntary and separate delegation of primacy to the states for Class VI wells under the UIC program unless the state requests the delegation be made a part of a state UIC primacy program.

Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies.

However, 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24827

Comment: EPA Notice Questions: 73 FR 43523

EPA Rule Issue: 49. There may be benefits to parsing out primacy for Class VI wells, however EPA has not made a decision on this. Allowing States, Territories, and Tribes to acquire primacy for only Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of

other well classes. EPA Notice 43523.

GWPC CO2 Committee Response: Resolution 08-1 of the GWPC strongly urges USEPA to allow for the granting of individual primacy to states for the Class VI program. We further support the preservation of state authority to determine what agencies will exercise primacy, strongly urge USEPA to provide adequate funding, which will require a substantial increase above current funding levels both to meet both existing UIC program needs and the additional resources anticipated to be necessary for the Class VI program. Ramp up of resources, personnel, and training should precede anticipated heavy demand.

Rationale: Submit GWPC resolution 08-1

Response: As described above, EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule.

EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique technical challenges associated

with GS.

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant allocationformula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22789

Comment: A. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal rulemaking.

IOGCC Response: Many states currently have primacy jurisdiction under the UIC program and administer Class II and other wells. Primacy should be allowed for Class VI and should be structured to allow flexibility in the primacy process and defer to the state rule where it effectively meets the intent of the federal requirements.

Response: EPA clarifies that the primacy approval processes for Class II and Class VI differ. Section 1421 of SDWA directs EPA to grant primary enforcement responsibility (or primacy) to the States through two statutory provisions. The first provision, under Section 1422, provides for a State to demonstrate that its proposed UIC program is at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements in order to prevent endangerment of USDWs. The second provision, under Section 1425, allows a State to submit an alternative demonstration for its Class II program (oil and gas), where the State only has to demonstrate that its proposed Class II program is an effective program to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs.

EPA clarifies that Class VI wells are regulated under Section 1422 of SDWA, and adds that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final

GS rule.

EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport, and they are familiar with public interests and the SDWA. EPA believes that this experience, along with the agencies' familiarity with UIC permitting requirements, will help facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22830

Comment: V. How Will States, Territories, and Tribes Obtain UIC Program Primacy for Class

VI Wells?

VV. EPA is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of other well classes.

IOGCC Response: The IOGCC strongly supports independent state primacy for Class VI. States should have the authority to designate which agency in the state can apply for and be granted primacy.Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, 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 will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum Federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. For example, in most States, the Class II program is run by an oil and gas agency and other well classes are run by a State environmental agency (e.g., the Oklahoma Corporation Commission oversees Class II wells in the State, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality oversees other well classes). Additionally, several States allow their oil and gas agencies to administer their UIC program for specific well classes or subclasses provided they meet all Federal requirements (e.g., the Texas Railroad Commission oversees Class III brine-mining wells and Class V geothermal wells in Texas). EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.

Commenter Name: Steven Chester Letter ID: 0264 Commenter Organization: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Comment ID:

22847

Comment: EPA (V.) proposes allowing state regulatory agencies to assume primacy for Class VI GS wells only.- Staff is in favor of this proposal.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Michael Moore Letter ID: 0265 Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association (NACCSA) Comment ID:

22857

Comment: - Issues Related to State Primacy: States should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, even in the absence of primacy for other well classes.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VIwells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Michael Moore Letter ID: 0265 Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association (NACCSA) Comment ID:

22871

Comment: 8. Issues Related to State Primacy

The proposed rule seeks comment on whether states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, noting the Agency's belief that "the most effective approach for the comprehensive management of CO2 GS projects would be achieved at the State and Tribal level." NACCSA agrees that states and tribes should play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. To that end, states should be permitted to seek primacy for Class VI wells, even in the absence of primacy for other well classes. Numerous states have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection through Class II programs, and those states in particular may have much to offer in the context of Class IV wells. Further, many states are moving ahead with developing their own legislation and regulations related to CCSactivities-in many cases legislation and regulations that go beyond the scope of EPA's jurisdiction, such as incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of potentially affected property rights. Allowing those states to take on primacy for Class VI wells unencumbered withthe burdens of taking on primacy for other well classes ensures that they are given credit and recognition for their groundbreaking work on CCS without disincentivizing states from taking a leadership role on CCS.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Grover Campbell Letter ID: 0271 Commenter Organization: Chesapeake Energy Comment ID: 22893

Comment: 2. State Primacy for Class VI Wells

The EPA noted in the preamble to the proposed rule that it is seeking comment on the merits and possible disadvantages of allowing primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of other well classes.

We prefer that no state have primacy approval for Class VI wells unless that state also has primacy approval for Class II wells. Our concern is that a statewith primacy for only the new Class VI wells may assume that the only permitting option for injection of CO2 underground for any purpose, including the injection of naturally occurring acid gases, including CO2, at gas production and/or gas processing sites, would be a Class VI permit. This could lead to confusion and delays in obtaining a Class II permit. Any state granted primacy for the new Class VI wells should also have primacy for Class 11 wells so that their permitting agency is familiar with the purpose of Class II wells and the less restrictive requirements for Class II wells.

Response: EPA disagrees that Class VI primacy should only be granted to states with Class II programs. Many states that intend to sequester CO2 may not have oil and gas programs (e.g., states with extensive saline formations and no oil and gas resources). Furthermore, states with primacy for other well classes (e.g., Class I or deep Class V wells) would also possess a great deal of technical expertise regarding injection technology and an understanding of Section 1422 of SDWA.

While EPA acknowledges that states that have not obtained primacy under SDWA Section 1422 for other well classes may be less familiar with implementing the UIC program under that section of the Act, the Agency does not believe this would preclude their ability to effectively obtain and implement primacy for Class VI wells. EPA does not intend to limit primacy of Class VI wells to only states with primacy for Class II wells—any state that can demonstrate in its primacy application that they have developed regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule will be granted primacy for Class VI wells.

EPA also plans to support states as needed to help them develop and implement their Class VI programs. EPA will allow states to apply for primacy for Class VI independent of other well classes regardless of whether or not they have primacy for other well classes. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories to describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Mark Vickery Letter ID: 0280 Commenter Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Comment ID: 24111 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards)

Comment: (3) Flexibility and Streamlining in Class VI Program Primacy Considerations - TCEQ concurs with EPA's assessment that current options for injection of CO2 include Class I, ClassII, and ClassV wells. Accordingly, under state law, injection of CO2 in Texas will be regulated by either the TCEQ or the Railroad Commission (RRC). Noting the RRC's responsibility for Class II injection (including CO2 injection for enhanced recovery of oil and gas), TCEQ is responsible for Class I and most of Class V (including experimental injection of CO2). Class VI as proposed by EPA, under state law, would appear to be in TCEQ's jurisdiction. Section 27.022, Texas Water Code provides: "The commission has jurisdiction over the injection of carbon dioxide produced by a clean coal project, to the extent authorized by federal law, into a zone that is below the base of usable quality water and that is not productive of oil, gas, or geothermal resources". However,such jurisdictional lines are subject to change by state legislation. Flexibility will therefore be needed in federal authorization of the Class VI well program at whichever agency is designated by the state legislature. Flexibility in this sense primarily means free from constraints that EPA has traditionally imposed by bundling various well classes into an "all or nothing" condition for program primacy.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

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 longstanding policy of discouraging "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 Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum Federal requirements for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to divide the program between agencies. For example, in most States, the Class II program is run by an oil and gas agency and other well classes are run by a State environmental agency (e.g., the Oklahoma Corporation Commission oversees Class II wells in the State, and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality oversees other well classes). Additionally, several States allow their oil and gas agencies to administer their UIC program for specific well classes or subclasses provided they meet all Federal requirements (e.g., the Texas Railroad Commission oversees Class III brine-mining wells and Class V geothermal wells in Texas). EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental agencies.Commenter Name: Ginny Brannon Letter ID: 0521 Commenter Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environments Comment ID:

21449

Comment: framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the states that apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the underground injection control program. These states referred to as primacy states must meet the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs including construction, operating, monitoring, testing, reporting and closure requirements for well owners or operators.

Additionally, the Safe Drinking Water Act allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such as for only classes I, III, IV and VI under section 1422 or for Class II wells only under section 1425.

Colorado falls in this latter camp with primacy for Class II wells only.

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI with the injection of carbon dioxide. It is our contention the state should be able to seek primacy for Class VI wells as a stand alone class just as they do for Class II wells now. Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and the proposed Class VI wells for CO2 injection are similar in purpose and particularly suited as stand alone classes of wells.

Also in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and scientific community such that we have the expertise in the event we were to assume primacy for Class VI wells.

Finally geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon and capture, carbon capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA. By allowing states to acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for more comprehensive approach to managing carbon capture and sequestration projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow 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 providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, 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 comprehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the importanceof implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is critically important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EPA acknowledges that such expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university systems, such as in state universities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise will benefit implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide.

Comment Code: 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed duration of Class VI permits (seeking comment)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Michael H. Cochran Letter ID:

0108 Commenter Organization: Bureau of Water, Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) Comment

ID: 24921

Comment: 144.36: We believe it would be prudent to limit the life of the permit so that necessary adjustments to the permit can be made as needed with the opportunity for public comment and to establish a process for obtaining updated information concerning the injection operation. We would recommend a permit life of no more than 10 years.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA emphasizes that, in addition to the requirement that the Director review the permit every five years, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs.

EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) requiring permit modifications if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment.All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements

under 40 CFR Part 124.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters).

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Leslie Savage Letter ID: 0122 Commenter Organization: Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) Comment ID: 24756

Comment: §144.36 Duration of permits.

{We agree with the proposal to issue permits for UIC wells associated with sequestration of CO2 "for the period up to the operating life of the facility." The substantial financial investment in a project makes a permit for the operating like of the facility imperitive. }

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). The rule also requires the Director to review the permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators under the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (at least every 5 years) are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to

USDWs.

Commenter Name:John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21516

Comment: Proposed Duration of Class VI Injection Permit

-Permit renewal or review requirements should be added to the proposed rulemaking. The permit renewal or review process allows for extra permit transparency and regulatory authority to monitor and safeguard the operation. Pennsylvania recommends permit renewal or review every 10 years.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extendsthrough the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA adds that, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) requiring permit modifications if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41 depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR Part 124.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Carl Carlsson Letter ID: 0131 Commenter Organization: SUEZ Energy Generation NA, LLC Comment ID: 21540

Comment: Proposed Injection Permit Duration SEGNA agrees that with EPA's proposal that permits be issued for the operating life and post-closure care period of the injection well. The ongoing monitoring, reporting and regulatory review required by other provisions of this proposed rule are adequate to ensure that human health and the environment are protected.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators under the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan at least every five years throughout the life of the project are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA clarifies that the final GS rule specifies that Class VI permits will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). The rule also requires theDirector to review Class VI permits at least every 5 years to determine whether they should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39,
144.40, or 144.41.

Commenter Name: Christine Reimer Letter ID: 0142 Commenter Organization: National Ground Water Association Comment ID: 22586

Comment: Proposed Rule: 144.36(a)

Comment: Would there be a scenario where a facility would stop and restart? Concern is to make sure temporarily stopped injection activity does not allow party to wait a period of time and then walk away or alternatively cause closure if only a temporary stop.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final regulation at 144.51(o) states that temporary or intermittent cessation of injection operations is not abandonment. Please see the requirements for approving plugging and abandonment plans pursuant to §§144.51(o)--(p), 146.10, and 146.92. See also the discussion of plugging and abandonment in the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Bonnie Lovelace Letter ID: 0152 Commenter Organization: Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Comment ID:

22121

Comment: REGULATION-SPECIFIC COMMENTS

144.36: MDEQ believes that the life ofthe permit should not exceed 10 years. Such a limitation would allow for updating all aspects of the application, a complete review by the regulatory agency and public comment.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the GS project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments to the plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA adds that, in addition to the requirement that the Director review the permit every 5 years, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that says permit modifications may be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41 depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minormodifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters).

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name:James Dooley Letter ID: 0156 Commenter Organization:Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Comment ID:

22653

Comment: Page 43523. EPA explicitly asserts that because it (or a state that has primacy) has such a rigorous on-going dialogue with owners/operators that it is prudent to issue injection permits "for the life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period." This very consequential decision hinges upon whether or not there truly is an ongoing dialogue that is substantive and happens with enough frequency to allow problems to be detected and remediated quickly. I am not sure that I see this dialogue as being that robust.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenters regarding the importance of continuous interaction between permitting authorities and owners and operators during the life of a GS project. In response, EPA has built periodic plan reevaluations by the Director and owners and operators into the GS regulation . The final rule under §144.36(a) requires that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. EPA believes that this process will promote rigorous on-going dialogue between owners and operators and the permitting authority to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators is tailored to the unique aspects of GS and is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs..

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24136 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.36(a)

API Comments: (a) Permits for Class I and V wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 10 years. UIC Permits for Class II AND III and VIwells

shall be issuedEFFECTIVE for a period up to the operating life of the facility. PERMITS FOR CLASS VI WELLS SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE PERIOD

THROUGH

SITE CLOSURE.

Rationale: Permits are necessary for Class VI wells through the end of the post closure monitoring phase, which is consistent with the term site closure in the amended requirement.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final GS rule specifies that Class VI permits will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). The rule also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24267

Comment: Rule Provisions: 144.36(a) EPA Preamble Question: 50. EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permitswould be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the postinjection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach.

EPA Notice 43523.

API Response: A permit for the life of the project would ensure the continuity of operations. Shorter time periods would yield administrative burden without

commensurate benefits.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators under the finalrule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and ismore appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs. EPA notes that the final rule also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23693

Comment: Category: Permit Life

EPA Request for Comment: EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach. EPA Notice

43523.

AWWA Response: AWWA does not support issuing an operating permit for the life of the sequestration site. AWWA recommends issuing a lifetime operating permit for the coal plant, but with a separate and renewable permit for the operation of the geologic sequestration process. Much like the wastewater treatment plants and NPDES permits go through a permit review process every five years, AWWA recommends that this same process be used for operating permits for geologic sequestration processes. For water and wastewater treatment plants, the operating permit is issued at the start of operation and the plant must renew it every five years. This allows for the expansion of plant flow, and changes in required effluent criteria due to regulation modifications. Much as water and wastewater plants are required to keep up with available technology, carbon sequestration systems should be required to apply BACT when it is feasible to incorporate it into the treatment process. Owner/operators should also be required to periodically re-evaluate their injectate stream for any emerging contaminants, and remove them if required. If wastewater treatment plants can be constructed and operating using this type of process, then a sequestration operation should be permitted in the same manner. Process changes are part of standard business operation in that regulations become more stringent, and processes become more efficient, and the owner/operators should be required to adapt to these changes through the permit renewal process.

AWWA recommends that the application process include a review of the site operations to see if any instances of unsafe operation or changes in regulation would require a change in the plant operation. If a problem were detected, the permit wouldn't be immediately revoked, but the operator would be given the chance to rectify the situation so that the permit could be reissued. An owner/operator should consider the financial implications of this requirement and plan accordingly as the process will require a certain level of effort every five years to execute. AWWA recommends that the permit review process be aligned with the process used for review and renewal of NPDES permits. This would allow for all of the permit activities to be consolidated into one reapplication effort every five years.The capacity of the various state agencies to deal with the five year permit review process is an issue that needs to be recognized. Some states that are already stressed for resources could be overwhelmed with this additional task. However, AWWA believes that this permit requirement should not be sacrificed because the states might be resource stressed. Therefore, the federal government should consider allocating enough money to the state programs to adequate staff their sequestration permit division

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). They must identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

EPA believes that these changes will address many comments in support of permit renewal. Additionally, the reevaluation process could be aligned with issuance of other environmental permits associated with the facility, provided the minimum reevaluation frequency requirements are met. EPA clarifies that it does not have the authority under the SDWA (and associated UIC requirements) to alter permitting requirements issued under other environmental statutes for coal plants or any CO2 sources. The UIC program's authority is limited to the injection operation and ensuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

EPA adds that, in addition to the requirement that the Director review the permit at least every 5 years, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that says permit modifications may be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment.

EPA acknowledges that states and other commenters are concerned about resource availability for GS. The Agency will work closely with states to assist them in acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the unique challenges associated with GS. The Agency is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States and Tribes toenhance national understanding of the specific requirements in the GS rule and to support primacy application development and eventual implementation of the GS rule.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary to ensure the protection of USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23719 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Part 144.36(a): The geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide is not a fully proven technology and much is unknown about the long-term impacts, and potential unintended consequences of such injection. As previously stated, AWWA believes it would be prudent to limit the life of the Class VI permit so that necessary adjustments to the permit can be made as needed, with the opportunity for public comment. This will also establish a process for obtaining updated information on the injection operation. We would recommend a permit life of no more than 5 years. Therefore, AWWA recommends revising this part to read:

Permits for Class I and V wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 10 years. UIC Permits for Class II and III shall be issued for a period up to the operating life of the facility. Permits for Class VI wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 5 years.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the GS project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

Commenter Name: Bradley J. Field Letter ID: 0186 Commenter Organization: New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Comment ID:Div. of Mineral Resources 25218

Comment: TT. Therefore, EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach.

NYSDEC-DMN Response: NYSDEC-DMN agrees with the EPA proposal.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary

amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters).

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24366 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.36

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: (a) Permits for Class I and V wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 10 years EXCEPT FOR WELLS USED FOR GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION. UIC Permits for Class II AND III and VI wellsshall

be issuedEFFECTIVE for a period up to the operating life of the facility.

PERMITS FOR CLASS VI WELLS AND FOR OTHER WELLS USED FOR GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION

OF CO2 STREAMS SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE PERIOD THROUGH SITE CLOSURE.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Permits are necessary for geologic sequestration wells through the end of the post closure monitoring phase, which is consistent with the term site closure in the amended requirement.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final GS rule specifies that Class VI permits will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). EPA believes that including the phrase "other wells used for geologic sequestration of CO2 streams" is unnecessary,because all wells used to inject CO2 for the purpose of GS will be classified as Class VI wells. See also discussion in the preamble on grandfathered experimental Class V wells and transitioning Class

II to Class VI wells.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24560

Comment: Rule Provisions or Federal Register Cite: 144.36(a) EPA Preamble Question: 50. EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permitswould be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the postinjection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach.

EPA Notice 43523.

CSC Response: A permit for the life of the project would ensure the continuity of operations. Shorter time periods would yield administrative burden without commensurate benefits. The development of AoR, plans, and other parts of the permitting process must be addressed on a project-wide basis. Therefore it is important for permits to last for the operating life. It is also sensible to allow for area permits.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years.

EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA disagrees that area permits are appropriate for Class VI wells. The Agency believes that individual injection well permits are essential to ensure that every Class VI well is constructed, operated, monitored, plugged, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs.

EPA believes that the efficiencies and administrative benefits offered by area permits can be achieved through well executed plans required for Class VI wells. EPA envisions that planned additional GS wells should be discussed as part of the ongoing dialog between the owner or operator and the Director. For example, EPA expects the AoR plan to consider anticipated future wells so that the Director is able to consider all anticipated injection and resultant pressure changes in evaluating the plan and setting permit conditions. Similarly, testing and monitoring plans shouldaccount for future injection wells to ensure that ground water monitoring or CO2 plume and pressure front tracking are planned appropriately.

EPA also believes that requiring separate permit applications for each well will ensure that the public has an opportunity to provide input on each well in the field as it is constructed or brought online. In addition, where wells are re-permitted as Class VI wells (e.g., in ER projects, which may typically operate under Class II area permits), EPA believes that the unique nature of GS necessitates individual review of each well to ensure the re-permitted wells were engineered 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).

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24621

Comment: Rule Provisions: 144.36(a) EPA Rule Issue: 50. EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach. EPA Notice

43523.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Response: A permit for the life of the project would ensure the continuity of operations. Shorter time periods would yield administrative burden without commensurate benefits.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years.

EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24627 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.36(a)Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Comments: (a) Permits for Class I and V wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 10 years. UIC Permits

for Class II AND III and VIwells shall be issuedEFFECTIVE for a period up to the operating life of the facility. PERMITS FOR CLASS VI WELLS SHALL BE

EFFECTIVE FOR THE PERIOD THROUGH SITE CLOSURE.

Rationale: Permits are necessary for Class VI wells through the end of the post closure monitoring phase, which is consistent with the term site closure in the amended requirement.

Response: EPA clarifies that the final GS rule specifies that Class VI permits will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201 Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22161

Comment: Duration of permit - Southern Company supports EPA's proposal to issue Class VI injection well permits for the operating life of the GS project. Id. at 43523. EPA correctly observes that the requirements for periodic reevaluation of site data, corrective action status, monitoring results, and operating parameter modifications would render mandatory five- and ten year permit reviews unnecessary and duplicative. Id. Issuance of permits extending through the operating life of the GS project, including the post-injection site care period, will provide Owners or Operators and investors with certainty and will encourage investment in CO2 GS projects.

Response: EPA agrees with commenters that Class VI permits should be issued for the operating life of the GS project. EPA clarifies that the final GS rule specifies that Class VI permits will be issued for the operating life of the facility and the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). The final rule also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every five years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated, or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by theowners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary

amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years.

EPA adds that the required reviews of the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22210

Comment: - Permits should be issued for five-year periods and not the life of the geosequestration project. In addition, an annual reevaluation of the project’s

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22213 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment:have a plan to update the regulation on a regular basis as well. Having a permit

renewal schedule built into the rule will allow each state Director to ensure that updates to the regulation are included in permit renewals. AWWA and AMWAalso suggest that the permit application process include a review of the site operations to see if any instances of unsafe operation or changes in regulation would require a change in the plant operation.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

EPA adds that, in addition to the requirement that the Director review the permit every 5 years, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change, if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs, or if the regulations change. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) saying that permit modifications may be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213 Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Comment ID:

22949

Comment: - 73 FR 43523 -EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach.

Response: AMWA does not support issuing an operating permit for the life of the sequestration site. Instead, AMWA recommends issuing a lifetime operating permit for the coal plant, but with a separate and renewable permit for the operation of the geologic sequestration process. Drinking water treatment plants must notify state regulators of changes in ownership, management, or operations, and AMWA recommends that owner/operators of CCS sites be required to provide the same type of information to the Director in the event of changes. In addition,AMWA recommends that owner/operators be required to periodically reevaluate their injectate stream for any emerging contaminants, and remove them if required.

As CCS is a developing technology, AMWA recommends that EPA have a plan to update the regulation as additional information is gathered through research and through data and observations collected from permitted sites. Having a permit renewal schedule built into the process will allow the Director to ensure that updates to the regulation are included in permit renewals. AMWA also suggests

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA adds that, as part of existing requirements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications are required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR Part 124.

EPA notes that monitoring of the injectate stream is required under the monitoring and testing plandeveloped under 40 CFR 146.90; operators or owners must include injectate data in their semiannual reports to the Director.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA believes that these changes will address many comments in support of permit renewal. Additionally, the reevaluation process could be aligned with issuance of other environmental permits associated with the facility, provided the minimum reevaluation frequency requirements are met. EPA clarifies that it does not have the authority under the SDWA (and associated UIC requirements) to alter permitting requirements issued under other environmental statutes for coal plants or any CO2 sources. The UIC program's authority is limited to the injection operation and ensuring that USDWs are protected from endangerment.Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23273

Comment: 50. EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach. EPA Notice 43523.

This will reduce administrative burdens that would yield little or no

environmental benefit.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241 Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23277

Comment: 144.36 Permits for Class VI wells should be effective indefinitely, until the well is plugged.

Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)).

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23314 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3150 2.1.5 Comments on required permit information (40 CFR 146.82); 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI

wells

Comment: • EPA - advised by experts and regional stakeholders - and not individual states, should make permitting decisions on CCS projects, at least for the first few years. • Permits should be issued in stages, to be adaptive to advances in knowledge, science and regulation, not for the operating life of the well.

Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to address the availability of new information and technology is appropriate. EPA plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects, including site characterization, operational, monitoring, and modeling data, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.EPA disagrees that it should be the only entity to issue permits during the first few years after promulgation. EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA.

Additionally, States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation.

EPA expects that both Headquarters and the Regions will work closely with the states during the early permitting process to ensure that flexibility is applied in a manner that ensures a consistent level of USDW protection from endangerment. EPA designed flexibility into the regulations to ensure that site-specific factors can be accounted for and expects that permit writers will use discretion where site-specific factors are important. As part of its adaptive approach, EPA also plans to review initial permits (after they are granted) to ensure that USDW protection goals have been consistently met across differing geologic situations. If necessary, EPA will reevaluate the flexibility granted to states in the rule. As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits so that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Regarding the commenter's request that permits be issued in stages, EPA clarifies that the final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242 Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23325

Comment: V. EPA Should Issue Class VI Staged Permits, Rather Than Permits for the Operating Life of the Well.

Selecting an underground CO2 storage site and determining an appropriate injection rate necessarily contains uncertainties because underground geology is heterogeneous and impossible to map. There is a considerable lack of CCS experience and significant gaps in knowledge, including modeling storagecapacity and plume behavior and monitoring storage performance and movement. The rule must reflect these uncertainties, and be flexible enough to adapt to the new information that will be learned through the first few major demonstration projects. At this early stage, Class VI permits should not be granted for the operating life of the well.

An adaptive management approach (measuring while managing) is a sound, wellestablished method for dealing with scientific uncertainty. Adaptive regulatory design permits progressive regulatory action in response to improvements in information. [FN36] The adaptive management model envisages an initial regulatory approval based on available information (estimations and modeling) followed by a period of monitoring and reporting with reassessment of the appropriateness of the initial regulatory action and adjustment as required in light of new information, and presumably the resolution of previously identified uncertainties. [FN37]

[FN36: Judith Jones, Regulatory Design for Scientific Uncertainty, JOURNAL OF ENVTL. LAW, 19 JENVTLL 347 (2007).] [FN37: Id.]

The Class VI program should implement an adaptive management approach that acknowledges the scientific uncertainty regarding large-scale CCS. Under the proposed rule, initial Class VI permit limits are based on modeled predictions of plume behavior and movement, storage capacity, and suitable injection rates for the geologic formation. Under the proposed rules, based on these predictions, a Class VI operator receives a permit for the life of the well.

Operating a CCS well over a period of years, however, provides more accurate, site-specific data on the formation’s characteristics and plume behavior. To ensure the most current information is reflected in the permit terms, and thereby in well operation, EPA should issue permits in phases. As explained in comment VII regarding necessary changes in the AOR definition, EPA should also require the operator to submit an annual affidavit certifying that the permit terms and accompanying plans (monitoring, emergency response, etc.) do not require a change.

We recommend a three phase permitting system. The first phase will mirror the current permitting structure, except that the permit will not be for the life of the well, but rather for 5 years. Five years after the initial permit is issued, the owner or operator will be required to apply for the second phase. The Director would re-evaluate the permit to determine whether, based on the most current information, it is appropriate to continue injection at the site and, if so, whether the permit terms should be modified. The third and final phase of the permit would be 10 years after the second phase permit is issued. Again, the Director would re-evaluate the permit to determine whether, based on the most current information, it is appropriate to continue injection at the site and, if so, whether the permit terms should be modified. The Director’s periodic reevaluation would allow advances in regulation and science to be incorporated into the permit.Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s approach and believes the final rule addresses concerns about adaptability. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters). EPA believes that its approach will allow advances in regulation and science to be incorporated into the permit.

EPA emphasizes that Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR Part 124.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22291

Comment: E. Specific Amendments to the Proposed Rule

The rule should authorize Class VI permits for "up to" the operating life of a facility only if the rule is amended to require all aspects of project operations to be modified as appropriate over the course of the project

We support EPA’s proposal in §144.36 to issue Class VI well permits for a period "up to" the operating life of the facility. Still, it is not appropriate to issue these permits for the full operating life of the facility without consideration how project performance is evolving. Revisions of the Area of Review, and the various plans outlined in the proposed rule are to be expectedfrom time to time, and it is possible that some of the needed revisions might be so material so as to constitute ground for modification, revocation or reissuance of the permit.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s concern and believes that the final rule addresses this concern about adaptability. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters).

EPA emphasizes that the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR Part 124.

The Agency plans to collect and review data on GS projects every six years to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Commenter Name:Walter L. Baker Letter ID: 0253 Commenter Organization: Utah Division of Water Quality Comment ID: 22356

Comment: PERMIT DURATION

Permit duration may be less than the duration of the project in primacy states with the option for permit renewal. This offers the operator and regulator the opportunity to amend the permit as new information relevant to the project becomes available. The Utah DWQ also will require the inclusion of a re-opener clause in the permit to allow revision of the permit to accommodate extenuating circumstances and new information relevant to the permit.Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in thefinal rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters).

EPA emphasizes that the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR 124.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24838 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language; 3500 2.2.3 Area of Review Reevaluation (seeking comment)

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.36

EPA Proposal: 6. Section 144.36 is amended by revising the first two sentences in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 144.36 Duration of permits.

(a) Permits for Class I and V wells shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed 10 years. UIC Permits for Class II, III and VI wells shall be issued for a period up to the operating life of the facility. * * *

* * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: The proposed provision is considered acceptable as long as theiterative reevaluation process established for AoRs also applies to other aspects of the project including modeling, characterization, operational decisions, monitoring, financial assurance, etc. It is recognized that Directors may also depend on 144.39 regarding modification and revocation of Class VI permits.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and notes that the final rule retains this requirement. The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in thefinal rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration.

EPA emphasizes that the final rule requires owners or operators to revise their cost estimates for financial assurance within 60 days of amendments to the AoR and corrective action plan, the injection well plugging plan, the post-injection site care and site closure plan, or the emergency and remedial response plan (40 CFR 146.85(c)(2).

EPA emphasizes that, the Director has the authority to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit modifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR Part 124.

Letter ID: 0263 Commenter Organization: Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Comment ID: 22831

Comment: VI. What Is the Proposed Duration of a Class VI Injection Permit?

WW. Therefore, EPA proposes that Class VI injection well permits would be issued for the operating life of the GS project including the post-injection site care period. EPA seeks comment on the merits of this approach.

IOGCC Response: The IOGCC agrees with the EPA proposal.Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in thefinal rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., ten years as suggested by some commenters).

Comment Code: 5800 2.13 Comments on emergency and remedial response (40 CFR 146.94)



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name:John Stormon Letter ID: 0123 Commenter Organization:Washington State Dept. of Ecology Comment ID: 23008

Comment: Remedial Action: Establish triggers for entering remedial action during the negotiation of the geologic sequestration permit. Identification of environmental impacts from monitoring at a permitted facility is frequently followed by a prolonged legal discussion of when these impacts become large enough to trigger remedial actions. EPA should consider moving this discussion to the initial permitting process so that the operator and regulatory agency agree before impacts are observed. This will help all to understand where the threshold is and will help to prevent legal efforts intended to delay beginning remedial actions when environmental impacts have been observed.

Response: EPA believes that the final rule takes a proactive approach to remedial actions by requiring, under §146.94, each permit application to include an emergency and remedial response plan so that both the owner or operator and the Director may immediately respond to any fluid movement that may endanger a USDW at GS sites. Furthermore, EPA believes that each response action will be site- and event- specific, and that setting specific environmental impact triggers outside of a showing of USDW endangerment in advance would not be practical or account for every potential scenario. For this reason, the emergency and remedial response requirements at §146.94 are designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event of endangerment, the owner or operator will immediately cease injection (i.e., take immediate action to avoid any further endangerment) and initiate a dialogue with the Director as soon as possible to identify appropriate next steps based on

the circumstances.EPA clarifies that, if the owner or operator obtains evidence that USDWs may be endangered or that leakage is occurring, he or she must cease injection, take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94(b)).

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0127 Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 23058

Comment: E. EPA PROVIDES IN THE PROPOSED RULE NO MEANS OF ASSURING

CORRECTIVE ACCTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE SEQUESTRATION PROJECT OWNER.

1 EPA discusses in the proposed rule the difficulty of corrective action in the event of a project problem, but does not come to a resolution.

2. There is no assurance major oil and gas companies will operate the Class VI wells, since experienced engineers are needed to produce oil and gas for the

nation.

2. EPA discusses using the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) idea of charging each Class VI well operator a per ton injection fee to be use in the case of an emergency, but what fee should be charged? EPA had no answer.

3. In Canada 4.6 percent of the sequestration wells leak. The chance of an CO2 leak appears real.

4. If a leak occurs under a home and the residents are asphyxiated, and the project owner has gone bankrupt, who is responsible?

5. EPA suggest they are in contact with a Federal Agency regarding funding for emergencies, but reading the references provided by EPA, the reader finds no reference to sequestration well funding. The reference is to transportation, perhaps transportation of CO2 by pipeline, but even that is not clear.

Response: EPA expects the emergency and remedial response requirements at §146.94 will encourage owners or operators to plan (during the permitting phase of a GS project) for any actions that would be necessary in the unlikely event of a GS project-related emergency and ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations.

EPA clarifies that, if the owner or operator obtains evidence that USDWs may be endangered or that leakage is occurring, he or she must cease injection, take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94(b)). Failure to respond to any evidence of USDW endangerment would be considered a violation of the UIC permit and would be subject to applicable civil, criminal, or administrative penalties.

In response to the comment about funding for emergency actions or damage if the owner or operator were to go bankrupt, EPA clarifies that §146.85 requires owners or operators to demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility for performing any necessary remedial actions associated with therequirements at §146.94, including the actions outlined in their GS project-specific emergency and remedial response plan.

Commenter Name:John Hanger Letter ID: 0130 Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21512

Comment: -EPA should identify existing methods for remediation of a rogue CO2 plume.

Response: EPA clarifies that determining appropriate remedial actions and mitigation technologies that may be employed at a GS site is site- and event-specific and will depend on a variety of factors, including the nature of any movement of CO2 or other fluids, the presence of USDWs, and what, if any, impacts may have resulted. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites. EPA clarifies that, if owners or operators obtain evidence that USDWs may be endangered or that leakage is occurring, owners or operators must cease injection, take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94(b)).

Commenter Name: Christine Reimer Letter ID: 0142 Commenter Organization: National Ground Water Association Comment ID: 22615 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Proposed Rule: 146.94(a)

Proposed revision: (a) As part of the permit application, the owner or operator must provide the Director with an emergency and remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, operation, closure and post-closure periods. The emergency and remedial response plan must be reviewed and updated, as necessary, on the same schedule as the update to the

Area of Review.

Rationale: Keep same update schedule as AOR

Response: In response to comments on the duration of the emergency and remedial response plan, EPA clarifies that the plan will apply over the life of the GS project through the post-injection site care period (§146.94(a)). EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) that owners or operators must review their emergency and remedial response plan within one year of an AoR reevaluation required under §146.84 or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed based on the AoR reevaluation or any significant changes made to the facility.

Commenter Name: Richard Driggans Letter ID: 0145 Commenter Organization: Tennessee Valley Authority Comment ID: 23155 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of liability for long-term care

Comment: 5. Unspecified Operational Consequences - In the unfortunate event operational experience at a GS site shows the permitted geologic storage was ill advised and that CO2 injection from a fossil-fueled power plant sited and operated at (ortransporting supercritical CO2 to) that location must be terminated, TVA requests a provision be added to this rule to address what consequences, with regards to resumed emissions of CO2, discontinuation of CCS would have for such a facility.

Response: EPA clarifies that EPA’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act is limited to and the focus of the GS regulation is on preventing USDW endangerment due to injection, and that any impacts to or procedures for fossil fuel power plants are outside the scope of the GS rule. EPA is, however, developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites. To meet the requirements for developing an emergency and remedial response plan (specified at §146.94(a)), an owner or operator should identify people (in addition to the Director), such as first responders, who should be contacted in the event of an emergency associated with the well. EPA envisions that the party that transports the CO2 onsite should be

notified as well.

See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23372

Comment: Leaks and response plans -- Pg. 46

APPA believes that the owner/operator must take remedial action as described in the permit’s response plan.

Response: EPA agrees that an emergency and remedial response plan is an important part of assuring protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at §146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit applications, comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169 Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23418 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4720 2.7.2 Operational recordkeeping and reporting

Comment: data point. We also suggest that the EPA have some reasonable test for response to the state or Federal permitting agency in the event that a reporting event happens on a weekend or during nighttime hours. Some owner/operators will be on different time zones than the injection well operator. APPA suggests that a reasonable time be allowed for reporting to be sent in on routine data where there is no catastrophic reporting event.

Response: EPA clarifies that the requirement at §146.94(b)(3) is to notify the Director within 24 hours of an emergency. The Agency believes that the 24 hour timeframe for notifying the Director is a "reasonable" time period. Furthermore, permitting agency response personnel are typically "on call" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23431

Comment: Leaks and response plans

APPA believes that the owner/operator must take remedial action as described in the permit’s response plan.

Response: EPA agrees that an emergency and remedial response plan is an important part of assuring protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at §146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit applications, comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24211 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(b)

API Comments: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream, DISPLACED FORMATION FLUIDS OR andassociated pressure

front may cause an endangerment toENDANGERS a USDW, the owner or operator

must: (1) Immediatelycease injection IN A PRUDENT MANNER CONSIDERING

CIRCUMSTANCES. (2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize THE
ENDANGERMENT POSED; (3) Notify the Director or the designated representative within 24 hours OF BECOMING AWARE OF THE ENDANGERMENT; and

Rationale: Technical clarifications.

There is a slight change that immediately ceasing injection could have adverse impacts on other aspects of the operation.

Response: After consideration of comments, EPA has finalized the rule language in §146.94(b) as proposed. In the introductory section of §146.94(b), EPA clarifies that the pressure front, as defined in §146.81, is a zone where the pressure differential is sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW. Therefore, displaced formation fluids are implicitly included in the requirements for §146.94. EPA also clarifies that owners or operators must take action when the CO2 stream or pressure front may cause endangerment. In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

Regarding changes to the language in §146.94(b)(1), EPA believes that it is implicit that owners or operators should take care not to damage the well when ceasing injection. At §146.94(b)(2), EPA is maintaining the requirement to “characterize the release.” As currently written, the situation shouldbe characterized whether or not a USDW has actually been endangered, and owners or operators are encouraged to discuss with the Director whether actual endangerment has occurred. Concerning commenters’ suggestions for §146.94(b)(3), EPA clarifies that the 24 hours begins when the owner or operator obtains evidence of possible endangerment. EPA believes the rule language is clear on this requirement.

Commenter Name: Kyle Isakower Letter ID: 0170 Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 24212 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(d)

API Comments: (d) The owner or operator must notify the Director prior to conducting any well workover IN RESPONSE TO ANY CASE OF

ENDANGERMENT.

Rationale: In critical situations, time spent obtaining approval could adversely affect the ability to conduct operations or increase the level of endangerment.

Response: Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule, at §146.94(b), describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the immediate action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181 Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23751 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Part 146.94(a) It is important that the emergency and remedial response plan is reviewed and updated on the same schedule as the area of review update. Changes

in the area of review could affect the actions that would need to be taken in the event of an emergency. AWWA recommends revising this part to read:

As part of the permit application, the owner or operator must provide the Director with an emergency and remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may causean endangerment to a USDW during construction, operation, closure and postclosure periods. The emergency and remedial response plan must be reviewed and updated, as necessary, on the same schedule as the update to the Area of Review.

Response: EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) that owners or operators must review their emergency and remedial response plan within one year of an AoR reevaluation required under §146.84 or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed based on the AoR reevaluation or any significant changes made to the facility.

Commenter Name:Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183 Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center Comment ID:

25146

Comment: D. EPA Should Expand the Emergency and Remedial Response Requirements

The proposed emergency and remedial response provisions are meant to address threats to USDWs that may arise during the lifetime of a Class VI well. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,541 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 146.94(a)). As part of the permitting process, the owner or operator is required to submit a remedial response plan describing responses "address[ing] movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW." Id. The plan should cover the "construction, operation, closure and post-closure" phases of the GS project.[FN7] Id. No additional guidance for the plan’s contents is provided by the proposed regulation.

[FN7] It is unclear whether EPA intended the term "operation" to include the post-injection site care period (which precedes site closure). See 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,540-41 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 146.93). EPA should clarify this language and require that the emergency and remedial response plan specifically cover the post-injection site care period.

The emergency and remedial response provisions are too narrow in that they fail to address ways in which GS may endanger USDWs other than "movement of the injection or formation fluids." For example, as a result of the CO2 mixing with fluid during or after injection, two problems may occur. First, the mixture can be highly corrosive, thereby potentially weakening the well and/or the containment boundaries and increasing the risk inherent to all Class VI wells that injected fluids will migrate outside the containment zone. Second, the corrosive liquid can cause metals and minerals present in a specific containment zone to leach, migrate, and threaten USDWs. Under the proposed regulation, these dangers would not be accounted for in the owner or operator’s emergency and remedial response plan. The emergency and remedial response provisions should be expanded to address these concerns.

Further, the draft regulations require the owner or operator to report and implement its emergency and remedial response plan only if the "owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream and associated pressure front may cause an endangerment to a USDW." Id. at 43,541 (proposed 40C.F.R. §146.94(b)). As an initial matter, the phrase "obtains evidence" is undefined and has no clear meaning within the regulation. ELPC and ETIP recommend that EPA clarify the term. Further, like proposed 40 C.F.R. section 146.94(a), proposed section 146.94(b) is too narrow, for two reasons. First, it is unclear why EPA should rely solely on evidence obtained from owners or operators. ELPC and ETIP recommend that EPA require that remedial (or at least investigatory) responses be triggered by information from third parties in addition to owners or operators, including but not limited to sub-surface, surface or adjacent property owners, as well as government entities. Second, the owner or operator’s duty to report and implement the remedial response plan would not be triggered in every instance in which a USDW may be endangered. ELPC and ETIP recommend expanding the trigger to include, for example, instances where leaching of metals or minerals is detected (by the owner or operator or third parties).

Response: In response to comments on the duration of the emergency and remedial response plan, EPA clarifies that the plan will apply over the life of the GS project through the post-injection site care period (§146.94(a)). EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) that owners or operators must review their emergency and remedial response plan within one year of an AoR reevaluation required under §146.84 or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, the owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed based on the AoR reevaluation or any significant changes made to the facility.

In response to the comment that the rule language should be expanded to require the plan to address potential problems that can result when CO2 combines with other fluids during or after the injection process, EPA clarifies that emergency and remedial response actions would be triggered by any evidence that USDWs are endangered, which would include evidence of interactions between CO2 and other fluids that have the potential to affect USDWs.

EPA notes that in developing Class VI requirements, the Agency identified the potential corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water (or other formation fluids) as a unique challenge that warranted requirements tailored for GS and has addressed this concern throughout the GS rule. EPA requires corrosion monitoring, MIT, and ground water sampling (at §146.90) to provide early warning of any potential problem with a GS project that could endanger USDWs. While the multiple barriers of protection afforded by other aspects of the regulation should make such adverse events unlikely, the purpose of the emergency and remedial response plan is to ensure that procedures are in place to address adverse events, including corrosion of the well, as expeditiously as possible.

In response to the recommendation that remedial responses be triggered by information from third parties, EPA clarifies that the GS rule requires that if the owner or operator obtains any evidence (regardless of the source of that evidence) that USDWs may be endangered, he or she must cease injection, take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94(b)). EPA clarifies that §1421 of SDWA mandates protection of USDWs from endangerment due to injection activities; the purpose of the emergency and remedial response requirements is to ensure that if other protective measures afforded by the regulations fail, timely actions will be taken to address contamination. Failure to respond to any evidence that USDWs may be endangered would be considered a violation of the UIC permit and would be subject to applicable civil, criminal, or administrative penalties.Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites.

Commenter Name:Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183 Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center Comment ID:

25153

Comment: The proposed regulation requires the owner or operator to "provide the Director with an emergency and remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW." Id. at 43,541 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 146.94(a)). Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 146.85 requires the owner or operator to maintain financial assurance to cover the emergency plan. However, neither that provision nor proposed section 146.94 indicates how the costs should be estimated. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,537, 43,541. Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 146.94 also does not explain how the owner, operator or Director will cover the costs of emergencies not anticipated by the plan. In fact, since the only emergencies covered are those already anticipated by the emergency planning provisions, truly unanticipated

events are not covered.

Response: In response to the comment about funding for emergency actions, EPA clarifies that §146.85 requires owners or operators to demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility for performing any necessary remedial actions associated with the requirements at §146.94, including the actions outlined in their GS project-specific emergency and remedial response plans. EPA believes the emergency and remedial response plan required under §146.94 will be a comprehensive plan that should include all possible events. EPA is also developing guidance on how to demonstrate financial responsibility.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24504 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(a)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: (a) As part of the permit application, the owner or operator must provide the Director with an emergency A RISK-BASED remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, operation, closure and post-closure periods.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Any response plan should be based on a risk assessment and risk management approach that accounts not only for potential causes of endangerment, but probabilities and potential timing of occurrence as determined on a site-specific basis. As EPA has recognized, "The SDWA does not provide authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43495. Accordingly, the nature and scope of any such plans will necessarily be limited to the extent of that authority.

Response: EPA agrees that emergency and remedial response plans should be risk-based, however,EPA did not make the requested change. The Agency believes that the requirement to develop a sitespecific emergency and remedial response plan that is informed by required site characterization data collected under per §146.82, modeling for AoR evaluations and reevaluations, per §146.84, and monitoring data, per §146.90, will appropriately address commenter concerns regarding the need for a risk-based emergency and remedial response plan.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24505 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(b)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream, DISPLACED FORMATION FLUIDS OR

andassociated pressure front may cause an endangerment toENDANGERS a USDW, the owner or operator must:

(1) ImmediatelyCease injection IN A PRUDENT MANNER CONSIDERING

CIRCUMSTANCES.

(2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize THE
ENDANGERMENT POSED;

(3) Notify the Director or the designated representative within 24 hours OF BECOMING AWARE OF THE ENDANGERMENT; and

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Technical clarifications.

Under some circumstances, an immediate cessation of injection could have adverse impacts on other aspects of the operation.

Rule Provision: 146.94(c)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Rule Provision: 146.94(d)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: (d) The owner or operator must notify the Director prior to conducting any well workover IN RESPONSE TO ANY CASE OF

ENDANGERMENT.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: In critical situations, time spent obtaining approval could adversely affect the ability to conduct operations or increase the level of endangerment.

Response: After consideration of comments, EPA has finalized the rule language in §146.94(b) as proposed. In the introductory section of §146.94(b), EPA clarifies that the pressure front, as definedin §146.81, is a zone where the pressure differential is sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW. Therefore, displaced formation fluids are implicitly included in the requirements for §146.94. EPA also clarifies that owners or operators must take action when the CO2 stream or pressure front may cause endangerment. In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

EPA clarifies that the Agency expects that owners or operators should take care not to damage the well when ceasing injection under §146.94(b)(1). At §146.94(b)(2), EPA is maintaining the requirement to “characterize the release.” In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the SDWA.

EPA clarifies that the 24-hour notification required under §146.94(b)(3) begins when the owner or operator obtains evidence of possible endangerment. EPA believes the rule language is clear on this requirement.

Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule (at §146.94(b)) describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the immediate action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs, as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name: Andy Horn Letter ID: 0196 Commenter Organization: Colorado Ground Water Association (CGWA) Comment ID: 23935

Comment: Issue 13. The proposed rule should consider and discuss mitigation options for large- scale failure of a mature GS reservoir.

Response: EPA clarifies that determining appropriate remedial actions and mitigation technologies that may be employed at a GS site is site- and event-specific and will depend on a variety of factors, including the nature of any movement of CO2 or other fluids, the presence of USDWs, and what, if any, impacts may have resulted. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites. EPA clarifies that, if the owner or operator obtains evidence that USDWs may be endangered or that leakage is occurring, he or she must cease injection, take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan(§146.94(b)).

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24724 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(b)

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Comments: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream, DISPLACED FORMATION

FLUIDS OR andassociated pressure front may cause an endangerment to ENDANGERS a USDW, the owner or operator must:

(1) Immediatelycease injection IN A PRUDENT MANNER CONSIDERING

CIRCUMSTANCES.

(2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize THE
ENDANGERMENT POSED;

(3) Notify the Director or the designated representative within 24 hours OF BECOMING AWARE OF THE ENDANGERMENT; and

Rationale: Technical clarifications.

There is a slight change that immediately ceasing injection could have adverse impacts on other aspects of the operation.

Response: After consideration of comments, EPA has finalized the rule language in §146.94(b) as proposed. In the introductory section of §146.94(b), EPA clarifies that the pressure front, as defined in §146.81, is a zone where the pressure differential is sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW. Therefore, displaced formation fluids are implicitly included in the requirements for §146.94. EPA also clarifies that owners or operators must take action when the CO2 stream or pressure front may cause endangerment. In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

EPA clarifies that the Agency expects that owners or operators should take care not to damage the well when ceasing injection under §146.94(b)(1). At §146.94(b)(2), EPA is maintaining the requirement to “characterize the release.” In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the SDWA.

In response to commenters’ suggestions regarding §146.94(b)(3), EPA clarifies that the 24 hours begins when the owner or operator obtains evidence of possible endangerment. EPA believes the rule language is clear on this requirement.Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200 Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24725 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(d)

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) Comments: (d) The owner or operator must notify the Director prior to conducting any well workover IN RESPONSE TO ANY

CASE OF ENDANGERMENT.

Rationale: In critical situations, time spent obtaining approval could adversely affect the ability to conduct operations or increase the level of endangerment.

Response: Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule (at §146.94(b)) describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the immediate action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs, as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name: Andrew Duguid Letter ID: 0226 Commenter Organization: Schlumberger Carbon Services Comment ID: 24075 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: §146.94 Emergency and remedial response.

Proposed Rule: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream and associated pressure front may cause an endangerment to a USDW, the owner or operator must:

Schlumberger Suggested Revision: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream or associated pressure front endangers a USDW, the owner or operator must:

Schlumberger Rationale: -

Proposed Rule: (2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release;

Schlumberger Suggested Revision: (2) Take all steps reasonably necessary toidentify and characterize the endangerment posed;

Schlumberger Rationale: -

Proposed Rule: (3) Notify the Director within 24 hours; and

Schlumberger Suggested Revision: (3) Notify the Director within 24 hours of becoming aware of the endangerment; and

Schlumberger Rationale:-

Proposed Rule: (d) The owner or operator must notify the Director and obtain his approval prior to conducting any well workover.

Schlumberger Suggested Revision: (d) The owner or operator must notify the Director prior to conducting any well workover in response to any case of endangerment.

Schlumberger Rationale:In critical situations, time spent obtaining approval could adversely affect the ability to conduct operations or increase the level of endangerment.

Response: After consideration of comments, EPA has finalized the rule language in §146.94(b) as proposed. In the introductory section of §146.94(b), EPA clarifies that the pressure front, as defined in §146.81, is a zone where the pressure differential is sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW. Therefore, displaced formation fluids are implicitly included in the requirements for §146.94. EPA also clarifies that owners or operators must take action when the CO2 stream or pressure front may cause endangerment. In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

EPA clarifies that the Agency expects that owners or operators should take care not to damage the well when ceasing injection under §146.94(b)(1). At §146.94(b)(2), EPA is maintaining the requirement to “characterize the release.” In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the SDWA.

Concerning commenters’ suggestions for §146.94(b)(3), EPA clarifies that the 24 hours begins when the owner or operator obtains evidence of possible endangerment. EPA believes the rule language is clear on this requirement.

Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule, at §146.94(b), describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the immediate action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs, as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22285 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: The rule should incorporate a "non-interference principle" to keep one sequestration project from interfering with the effectiveness of another

As EPA notes in the preamble (page 43506), "it is ... possible that multiple owners or operators will be injecting CO2 into formations that are hydraulically connected and thus the elevated pressure zones may intersect or interfere with each other." Our Environmental NGO Group agrees that this is a genuine possibility at this stage in GS implementation. Until comprehensive approaches to basin-scale management are developed, we urge the adoption of the following addition to §146.94:

"(e) If an owner or operator obtains evidence that a pressure front associated with one geologic sequestration project intersects or threatens to intersect a pressure front associated with any other project, the owner or operator obtaining such evidence must notify the Director and the other owner or operator. If the Director determines that the pressure front associated with one project interferes or threatens to interfere with the ability of a project that began operations at an earlier date to sequester the earlier project’s total anticipated volume of the carbon dioxide stream as determined under §146.83(a), the Director may require the owner or operator of the project that began operations at a later date to modify operations as necessary to avoid such

interference."

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that there are a variety of factors that may affect the need for emergency and remedial response at GS sites. EPA believes that the GS Rule adequately protects USDWs from being endangered by multiple wells. EPA has decided not to adopt the commenter’s edit. However, the Agency believes that a site-specific emergency and remedial response plan that is informed by required site characterization data (per §146.82), modeling for AoR evaluations and reevaluations (per §146.84), and monitoring data (per §146.90) will appropriately address commenter concerns regarding the potential impacts of multiple GS projects. EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) that owners or operators must review their emergency and remedial response plan within one year of an AoR reevaluation required under §146.84 or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, the owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed based on the AoR reevaluation or any significant changes made to the facility.EPA also encourages owners or operators and permitting authorities to communicate planned GS activities during initial permitting activities to maximize coordination and minimize pressure interference. If a permit applicant (or the permitting authority) is aware of pending GS projects near a proposed well, the AoR delineation performed pursuant to §146.84 should account for the impacts of multiple owners and operators injecting within a single basin. EPA expects that, where multiple operators are involved, the Director will not approve modeling that does not account for changes that may result from all injection operations.

EPA expects that changes within the AoR, such as the addition of new wells or projects that could potentially interfere with a GS project, will be identified as part of the AoR reevaluations required at §146.84(e) and would need to be addressed in a revised emergency and remedial response plan. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of project plans for GS sites, including emergency and remedial response plans.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22299 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Emergency and remedial response, including response to potential problems relating to geologic features, is a necessary complement to corrective action and should remain in the rule. While wells are the most likely conduits for fluid movement into USDWs, the definition of corrective action and the relevant provisions in §146.84 do not take into account the potential for geologic features, such as faults, spill points or fractures, to act as conduits for CO2 or other fluid migration, and hence breach of confinement. Actions to mitigate or remediate a potential breach of confinement, or a situation which might eventually lead to a breach of confinement, should not be limited to corrective action on wells. We therefore strongly support EPA’s inclusion of the Emergency and remedial response section. We propose two minor changes - change §146.94(b) (4) to read:

[In the paragraphs below the text in all CAPS denotes added text. See also EPA-HQ-OW-0390- 0250.pdf to see the original formatting.]

"Implement the emergency and remedial response plan approved by the Director, AND KEEP HIM APPRIZED OF THE IMPLEMENTATION."

and §146.94(d) to read:

"The owner or operator must notify the Director and obtain his approval prior to conducting any well workover OR OTHER REMEDIATION MEASURES NOT LISTED IN THE

EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLAN."

Response: The final rule keeps the language in §146.94(b)(4) as proposed. EPA agrees that the Director should be kept apprised of progress on the implementation of the emergency and remedial response plan and expects that the plan itself will include provisions on communications with the Director. EPA agrees that an emergency and remedial response plan is an important part of assuringprotection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at §146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit applications, comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites.

Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule, at §146.94(b), describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the immediate action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250 Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22313

Comment: Perhaps inadvertently, the proposed rule does not explicitly require updating of several of the required plans. In most but not all cases, there is a rather ambiguous requirement to "maintain" a given plan. Explicit requirements to make updates as warranted appear to be missing from provisions relating to:

• the emergency and remedial response plan required by §146.94 (there is no requirement here that the plan be updated as warranted - there is not even a requirement that the plan be "maintained."

Response: In response to comments on the need for revision of the emergency and remedial response plan, EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) requiring owners or operators to review their emergency and remedial response plans within one year of an AoR reevaluation or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, the owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24956 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.94(b)

(b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxidestream and associated pressure front may cause an endangerment to a USDW, the

owner or operator must:

(1) Immediately cease injection; (2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release; (3) Notify the Director within 24 hours; and (4) Implement the emergency and remedial response plan approved by the Director.

GWPC Recommendations: (b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the injected carbon dioxide stream, displaced formation fluids or associated pressure front endangers a USDW, the owner or operator must:

(1) Immediately cease injection; (2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize the endangerment posed; (3) Notify the Director or the designated representative within 24 hours of becoming aware of the endangerment; and (4) Implement the emergency and remedial response plan approved by the Director.

Rationale: The GWPC felt the notification period needed clarification since it did not specify when the clock began to run for the 24 hour notice period. Further, it was felt that notification of someone representing the Director would also constitute appropriate notice.

Response: After consideration of comments, EPA has finalized the rule language in §146.94(b) as proposed. In the introductory section of §146.94(b), EPA clarifies that the pressure front, as defined in §146.81, is a zone where the pressure differential is sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW. Therefore, displaced formation fluids are implicitly included in the requirements for §146.94. EPA also clarifies that owners or operators must take action when the CO2 stream or pressure front may cause endangerment. In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

Regarding changes to the language in §146.94(b)(1), EPA clarifies that the Agency expects that owners or operators take care not to damage the well when ceasing injection under §146.94(b)(1). At §146.94(b)(2), EPA is maintaining the requirement to “characterize the release.” In order to prevent the endangerment of USDWs, as required under §1421 of the SDWA, EPA expects the owner or operator to act preemptively and not wait until endangerment has occurred. This language is consistent with existing UIC requirements for other well classes and EPA’s authority under the

SDWA.

Concerning commenters’ suggestions for §146.94(b)(3), EPA clarifies that the 24 hours begins when the owner or operator obtains evidence of possible endangerment. Note that the definition of the Director in 40 CFR 144.3 includes the Director’s authorized representative. EPA believes the rule language is clear on this requirement.Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24957 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: EPA Proposal: (c) The Director may allow the operator to resume injection prior to remediation if the owner or operator demonstrates that the injection operation will not endanger USDWs.

(d) The owner or operator must notify the Director and obtain his approval prior to conducting any well workover.

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed EPA language for (c)

(d) The owner or operator must notify the Director prior to conducting any well workover in response to any case of endangerment.

Rationale: In critical situations, time spent obtaining approval could adversely affect the ability to conduct operations or increase the level of endangerment.

Response: Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule, at §146.94(b), describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name:John McManus Letter ID: 0294 Commenter Organization: American Electric Power Comment ID: 25309 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: 2. Non-interference principle

EPA notes in the preamble (page 43506), "it is...possible that multiple owners or operators will be injecting CO2 into formations that are hydraulically connected and thus the elevated pressure zones may intersect or interfere with each other." We have agreed that this possibility should be addressed through a revision to the regulations. Until more comprehensive approaches to basin-scale management are developed and based on the proposed definition of "pressure front", we recommend the adoption of the following addition to §146.94:"(e) If an owner or operator obtains evidence that a pressure front associated with one geologic sequestration project intersects or will more likely than not intersect the pressure front or area of review associated with another project, the owner or operator obtaining such evidence must notify the Director. The Director shall notify the owner or operator of the other geologic sequestration project. If the Director determines that the pressure front associated with one project interferes or will more likely than not interfere with the ability of another project to comply with the terms of its permit(s), the Director may require the owners or operators of the interfering or potentially interfering projects to modify operations as necessary to mitigate or avoid such interference. Such modifications may also include modifications mutually agreed upon by the respective owners and operators and approved by the Director."

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that there are a variety of factors that may affect the need for emergency and remedial response at GS sites. The Agency believes that a site-specific emergency and remedial response plan that is informed by required site characterization data (per §146.82), modeling for AoR evaluations and reevaluations (per §146.84), and monitoring data (per §146.90) will appropriately address commenter concerns regarding the potential impacts of multiple GS projects. EPA has added a requirement at §146.94(d) that owners or operators must review their emergency and remedial response plan within one year of an AoR reevaluation required under 146.84 or following significant changes to the facility. Subsequently, the owners or operators must submit an amended plan or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment to the plan is needed based on the AoR reevaluation or any significant changes made to the facility.

EPA also encourages owners or operators and permitting authorities to communicate planned GS activities during initial permitting activities to maximize coordination and minimize pressure interference. If a permit applicant (or the permitting authority) is aware of pending GS projects near a proposed well, the AoR delineation performed pursuant to 146.84 should account for the impacts of multiple owners and operators injecting within a single basin. EPA expects that, where multiple operators are involved, the Director will not approve modeling that does not account for changes that may result from all injection operations.

EPA expects that changes within the AoR, such as the addition of new wells or projects that could potentially interfere with a GS project, would be identified as part of the AoR reevaluations required at §146.84(e) and would need to be addressed in a revised emergency and remedial response plan. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of project plans for GS sites, including emergency and remedial response plans.

Commenter Name:John McManus Letter ID: 0294 Commenter Organization: American Electric Power Comment ID: 25318 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment:With respect to the emergency and remedial response section, we propose two changes - change §146.94(b)(4) to read:

"Implement the emergency and remedial response plan approved by the Director, and keep the Director apprized of the implementation."Response: The final rule retains the language in §146.94(b)(4) as proposed. EPA agrees that the Director should be kept apprised of progress on the implementation of the emergency and remedial response plan but expects that the plan itself will include provisions on communications with the Director. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at §146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit application, comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations. The rule sets forth triggers for notification to the Director that initiates consultation on appropriate responses. EPA expects that the owner or operator and Director would discuss the necessary response action and maintain a dialogue and communication throughout the conclusion of any needed actions. EPA is developing guidance on the development and implementation of emergency and remedial response plans for GS sites.

Commenter Name:John McManus Letter ID: 0294 Commenter Organization: American Electric Power Comment ID: 25319 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: and §146.94(d) to read:

"The owner or operator must notify the Director and obtain his approval prior to conducting any well workover or other remediation measures not listed in the emergency and remedial response plan."

It should be noted that the language chosen here for §146.94(d) relates specifically to remediation measures and not to emergency responses, which should not be delayed to seek approval when immediate response action is necessary. Every effort should be taken to ensure that emergency responses are comprehensively addressed in the plan, including appropriate notification provisions and timeframes, but emergency responses should not be delayed when awaiting approvals could impair the effectiveness of the response.

Response: Since proposal, EPA has modified the final regulatory language at §146.94(d) to clarify what constitutes a workover to address a well failure (which invokes remedial actions) and what constitutes a maintenance-type workover. For maintenance-type workovers (i.e., those that are scheduled in advance), the owner or operator must notify and gain approval from the Director prior to beginning the workover. In the final GS regulation, EPA has moved this requirement to the reporting requirements at §146.91(d) to clarify its intent.

Regarding concerns that notification could delay responses, EPA clarifies that the GS rule (at §146.94(b)) describes procedures owners or operators must take in emergency situations. Specifically, upon determining that there is a problem with the well that may endanger a USDW, the owner or operator must first cease injection, then take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and characterize any release, notify the Director, and implement the approved emergency and remedial response plan, which may include a well workover. EPA believes that ceasing injection (which the owner or operator would do immediately and before notifying the Director) is the action necessary to prevent or mitigate endangerment of USDWs, as required under the SDWA.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0510Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21223

Comment: And we are, of course, pleased that 146.94 requires remedial response and USDWs are endangered.

Response: EPA agrees that an emergency and remedial response plan is an important part of assuring protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at 146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit applications, comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations.

Comment Code: 5900 2.14 Other administrative requirements under 40 CFR 144



### Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24378 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.52

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24379 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.55

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24387 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rulelanguage

Comment: Rule Provision: Part 146 (12)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190 Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24389 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 146.5(e)

Proposed CCS Group Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Basis for CCS Group Comments: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24839 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: EPA Proposal: 7. Section 144.39 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (a) introductory text and by revising the second sentence in paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 144.39 Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits.

* * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24840Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.39

EPA Proposal: (a) * * * For Class I hazardous waste injection wells, Class II, Class III or Class VI wells the following may be causes for revocation and reissuance as well as modification; and for all other wells the following may be cause for revocation or reissuance as well as modification when the permittee requests or agrees. * * *

* * * * *

(3) * * * Permits other than for Class I hazardous waste injection wells, Class II, Class III or Class VI wells may be modified during their terms for this cause only as follows: * * * * * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24842 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: EPA Proposal: (2) When the Director determines that a Class I, II, III or VI well lacks mechanical integrity pursuant to § 146.8 or § 146.89 for Class VI of this chapter, he/she shall give written notice of his/ her determination to the owner or operator. * * *

* * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24843 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.52EPA Proposal: 9. Section 144.52 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to

read as follows:

§ 144.52 Establishing permit conditions.

(a) * * *

(8) Mechanical integrity. A permit for any Class I, II, III or VI well or injection project which lacks mechanical integrity shall include, and for any Class V well may include, a condition prohibiting injection operations until the permittee shows to the satisfaction of the Director under § 146.08 or § 146.89 for Class VI that the well has mechanical integrity.

* * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24844 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: 144.55

EPA Proposal: § 144.55 Corrective action.

(a) Coverage. Applicants for Class I, II, (other than existing), III or VI injection well permits shall identify the location of all known wells within the injection well’s area of review which penetrate the injection zone, or in the case of Class II wells operating over the fracture pressure of the injection formation, all known wells within the area of review penetrating formations affected by the increase in pressure. Applicants for Class VI shall perform corrective action as specified in § 146.84.* * *

* * * * *

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Rationale: Agree with EPA’s rationale.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.Commenter Name: Michel Paque Letter ID: 0259 Commenter Organization: Ground Water Protection Council Comment ID: 24848 Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1240 1.1.1.3 Suggested changes/edits to rule language

Comment: Rule Provision: Part 146

EPA Proposal: 12. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act 42, U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

GWPC Recommendations: Support the proposed language.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.