### This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.N o v e m b e r 2 4

, 2 0 0 8

S u b m i t t e d v i a o n l i n e c o m m e n t s y s t e m a t :

w w w

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g o v

R E : C o m m e n t s o f G r e e n p e a c e U S A o n : E P A

- H Q

- O W

- 2 0 0 8

- 0 3 9 0

- 0 0 0 1

T o W h o m I t M a y C o n c e r n :

O n b e h a l f o f G r e e n p e a c e U S A

, w e a r e w r i t i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e r e q u e s t f o r c o m m e n t s o n t h e

U n d e r g r o u n d I n j e c t i o n C o n t r o l ( U I C ) P r o g r a m : F e d e r a l R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r C l a s s V I I n j e c t i o n

W e l l s f o r t h e G e o l o g i c S e q u e s t r a t i o n o f C a r b o n D i o x i d e

- P r o p o s e d R u l e

.

G r e e n p e a c e i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t c a m p a i g n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t u s e s p e a c e f u l d i r e c t a c t i o n a n d

c r e a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o e x p o s e g l o b a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s a n d t o p r o m o t e s o l u t i o n s t h a t

a r e e s s e n t i a l t o a g r e e n a n d p e a c e f u l f u t u r e

.

A c t i o n i s n e e d e d t o r e d u c e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s

I n 2 0 0 7

, t h e U N I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l P a n e l o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e s a i d w a r m i n g o f t h e c l i m a t e

s y s t e m i s u n e q u i v o c a l a n d d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o h u m a n a c t i v i t y

, p r i m a r i l y t h e b u r n i n g o f f o s s i l f u e l s

. G l o b a l w a r m i n g t h r e a t e n s A m e r i c a a n d t h e w o r l d w i t h m o r e f r e q u e n t a n d m o r e s e v e r e s t o r m s

,

n e w o u t b r e a k s o f d i s e a s e s a n d c r o p p e s t s

, a n d m a s s i v e c o a s t a l f l o o d i n g

. S c i e n t i s t s h a v e

d o c u m e n t e d t h a t A r c t i c s e a i c e i s m e l t i n g r a p i d l y a n d t h e W e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s a l r e a d y m a y b e

i n p e r m a n e n t d r o u g h t

. T h e c l i m a t e c r i s i s r e q u i r e s u r g e n t a c t i o n

. T o a v o i d t h e w o r s t e f f e c t s

, g l o b a l g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s m u s t p e a k b y 2 0 1 5 a n d t h e n s t a r t f a l l i n g b y a t l e a s t 5 0 % b y

2 0 5 0

, c o m p a r e d t o 1 9 9 0 l e v e l s

. D e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s m u s t r e d u c e t h e i r g r e e n h o u s e g a s

e m i s s i o n s b y a t l e a s t 2 5 p e r c e n t b e l o w 1 9 9 0 l e v e l s b y 2 0 2 0

, a n d a t l e a s t 8 0 p e r c e n t b e l o w 1 9 9 0

l e v e l s b y 2 0 5 0

. 1

C o a l i s t h e l a r g e s t e m i t t e r o f g l o b a l w a r m i n g p o l l u t i o n i n o u r c o u n t r y

. I n f a c t

, e m i s s i o n s f r o m

c o a l

- f i r e d p o w e r p l a n t s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 4 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e g l o b a l w a r m i n g p o l l u t i o n i n t o d a y ’ s

a t m o s p h e r e

. 2 Y e t w o r l d g o v e r n m e n t s a r e p l a n n i n g t o b u i l d h u n d r e d s o f c o a l p o w e r p l a n t s i n t h e

n e x t d e c a d e

. I f s u c h p l a n s g o a h e a d i t w i l l b e i m p o s s i b l e f o r g o v e r n m e n t s t o r e d u c e g r e e n h o u s e

g a s e m i s s i o n s e n o u g h t o s e r i o u s l y t a c k l e c l i m a t e c h a n g e

.

C a r b o n C a p t u r e a n d S t o r a g e ( C C S ) a s a F a l s e S o l u t i o n

A s c a r b o n c a p t u r e a n d s t o r a g e i s i n c r e a s i n g l y d i s c u s s e d a s a p o s s i b l e m i t i g a t i o n o p t i o n b y

s o m e g o v e r n m e n t s

, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o h i g h l i g h t s o m e c r i t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s a n d c o n c e r n s

s u r r o u n d i n g t h i s t e c h n o l o g y

. S e r i o u s p r o b l e m s a r e i n h e r e n t w i t h a n y C C S p r o g r a m

. C C S i s a

v e r y c o s t i n t e n s i v e p r o c e d u r e

, i t i n c r e a s e s t h e c o s t s o f p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n b y 4 0 t o 8 0 %

c o m p a r e d w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l p o w e r p l a n t s ( d e p e n d i n g o n t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p l a n t a n d t h e

s t o r a g e s i t e

, a n d t h e t r a n s p o r t a n d c a p t u r e t e c h n o l o g y u s e d )

. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x t r a c o s t s o f

o p e r a t i o n

, t h e U S D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y c a l c u l a t e s t h a t i n s t a l l i n g c a r b o n c a p t u r e s y s t e m s w i l l

a l m o s t d o u b l e p l a n t c o s t s

. 3 T h i s w i l l l e a d t o e l e c t r i c i t y p r i c e h i k e s o f a n y w h e r e b e t w e e n 2 1 a n d

9 1 %

. 4 A d d i t i o n a l l y

, u s i n g C C S t e c h n o l o g y g r e a t l y r e d u c e s t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f p o w e r p l a n t s

, u p t o

3 0 % m o r e f o s s i l f u e l m u s t b e b u r n e d t o a c h i e v e t h e s a m e p o w e r o u t p u t

. 5 F i n a l l y

, C C S p r o d u c e sc o n s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n a l l o n g

- t e r m c o s t s

. M o n i t o r i n g a n d v e r i f i c a t i o n o v e r d e c a d e s i s n e c e s s a r y

t o g u a r a n t e e t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e s t o r e d c a r b o n d i o x i d e

. T o h a v e a n y p o t e n t i a l c l i m a t e b e n e f i t

, b u r i e d C O 2 m u s t r e m a i n u n d e r g r o u n d f o r e v e r

. H o w e v e r

, s a f e

, p e r m a n e n t s t o r a g e c a n n o t b e

a s s u r e d ; t h e w o r l d h a s n o e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e d e l i b e r a t e l o n g

- t e r m s t o r a g e o f a n y t h i n g

, l e t

a l o n e C O 2

. T h e l o n g e s t r u n n i n g s t o r a g e p r o j e c t

, S l e i p n e r i n N o r w a y

, i s o n l y 1 2 y e a r s o l d

. W h i l e s o m e g e o l o g i c a l r e s e r v o i r s c o u l d h a v e t h e s p e c i f i c c o m b i n a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s a n d

c h e m i c a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t t r a p i n j e c t e d C O 2 a n d e s s e n t i a l l y h o l d i t f o r a l l t i m e

, t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t

d a t a o r p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e t o k n o w w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e e n o u g h

.

B e y o n d t h e s e p r o b l e m s i n h e r e n t w i t h a n y a t t e m p t a t c a r b o n c a p t u r e a n d s t o r a g e

, t h e r e i s a h i g h

p o t e n t i a l f o r c a t a s t r o p h i c r e s u l t s f r o m a f l a w e d C C S p r o g r a m

. T h e g r e a t e s t r i s k f r o m C C S i s f o r

a l e a k t o o c c u r a n d t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e s t o r a g e s p a c e t o b e c o m p r o m i s e d

. T h i s i s n o t o n l y a

h i g h l y d a n g e r o u s r i s k

, b u t a h i g h l y l i k e l y o n e a s w e l l

. A n a t u r a l e x a m p l e o f t h e d a n g e r o f C O 2

l e a k a g e o c c u r r e d a t L a k e N y o s

, C a m e r o o n i n 1 9 8 6

. F o l l o w i n g a v o l c a n i c e r u p t i o n

, l a r g e

q u a n t i t i e s o f C O 2 t h a t h a d a c c u m u l a t e d o n t h e b o t t o m o f t h e l a k e w e r e s u d d e n l y r e l e a s e d

, k i l l i n g 1 7 0 0 p e o p l e a n d t h o u s a n d s o f c a t t l e o v e r a r a n g e o f 1 5 m i l e s

. 6 L e a k i n g c a r b o n d i o x i d e

f r o m u n d e r g r o u n d s t o r a g e s i t e s c o u l d a l s o c o n t a m i n a t e f r e s h w a t e r r e s e r v o i r s r e n d e r i n g t h e m

u n f i t f o r h u m a n c o n s u m p t i o n

, e s p e c i a l l y i f o t h e r c o n t a m i n a n t s

– e

. g

. m o b i l i z e d ( t o x i c ) m e t a l s l i k e

s u l f a t e s

, o r c h l o r i d e

– r e a c h d a n g e r o u s l e v e l s

. I f o p t i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d w h e r e C O 2 i s t o b e

s t o r e d i n s a l i n e f o r m a t i o n s t h e n t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f i n

- s i t u s a l i n e w a t e r s

( b r i n e s ) m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d

. T h e d i s p l a c e d b r i n e s m i g r a t e

, p o s s i b l y c o n t a m i n a t i n g f r e s h w a t e r

r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e i r p a t h

. I n f i l t r a t i o n o f s a l i n e w a t e r i n t o g r o u n d w a t e r o r t h e s h a l l o w s u b s u r f a c e

i m p a c t s w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s

, r e s t r i c t s o r e l i m i n a t e s a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e s o f l a n d

, a n d p o l l u t e s a q u i f e r s

a n d s u r f a c e w a t e r b o d i e s

. 7 T h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t r a p p i n g m e c h a n i s m s d e p e n d s o n t h e “ m i g r a t i o n

r a t e o f t h e C O 2 , w h i c h i t s e l f i s h i g h l y d e p e n d e n t o n t h e r o c k a n d f l u i d p r o p e r t i e s a n d g e o l o g i c a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e a c h s i t e ”

. 8 T h i s m e a n s t h a t e a c h s t o r a g e s i t e w o u l d n e e d t o u n d e r g o d e t a i l e d

c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s b o t h t o d e t e r m i n e s u i t a b i l i t y

, a s w e l l a s t o a s s e s s t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f l e a k a g e

. A s

l o n g a s C O 2 i s p r e s e n t i n g e o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n s

, t h e r e i s a r i s k o f l e a k a g e

– i t c a n m i g r a t e

l a t e r a l l y o r u p w a r d s t o t h e s u r f a c e

. U n d e t e c t e d f r a c t u r e s i n c a p r o c k s o r t h o s e c r e a t e d b y

i n j e c t i n g C O 2 a t t o o h i g h a p r e s s u r e c a n p r o v i d e a n o t h e r a v e n u e f o r C O 2 t o e s c a p e

. I m p r o p e r

d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w e l l s c a n a l s o c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r l e a k a g e

. 9 T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r

c l i m a t e m i t i g a t i o n a s w e l l a s t h e o t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d p u b l i c h e a l t h r i s k s m a k e l e a k a g e a

s e r i o u s c o n c e r n

.

F o r C C S t o h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t i n r e d u c i n g a t m o s p h e r i c c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f C O 2 t o r e d u c e

c l i m a t e c h a n g e

, a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t w o u l d h a v e t o b e s t o r e d

. T h e I E A e s t i m a t e s t h a t f o r C C S

t o d e l i v e r a n y m e a n i n g f u l c l i m a t e m i t i g a t i o n e f f e c t s b y 2 0 5 0

, 6 0 0 0 p r o j e c t s e a c h i n j e c t i n g a

m i l l i o n t o n s o f C O 2 p e r y e a r i n t o t h e g r o u n d w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d

. 1 0 A t t h e m o m e n t

, i t i s n o t c l e a r

t h a t i t w i l l b e t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e t o c a p t u r e a n d b u r y t h i s m u c h c a r b o n

, i

. e

. w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e

e n o u g h s t o r a g e s i t e s

, o r t h a t t h e y w i l l b e l o c a t e d c l o s e e n o u g h t o p o w e r p l a n t s

. N a t i o n a l l e v e l

e s t i m a t e s a r e l a r g e l y b a s e d o n m o d e l e d a v e r a g e v a l u e s a n d t h e r e f o r e r e m a i n a s o u r c e o f

c o n s i d e r a b l e u n c e r t a i n t y

. 1 1 T h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e e s t i m a t e s q u a n t i f y t e c h n i c a l c a p a c i t y

a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e w h o l e o f a r e s e r v o i r i s a c c e s s i b l e t o s t o r e C O 2 i n i t s p o r e v o l u m e

. T h i s c a n

e a s i l y l e a d t o u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y h i g h n u m b e r s a s t h e f r a c t i o n o f p o r e v o l u m e t h a t c a n b e u s e d f o r

C O 2 s t o r a g e i s s i t e

- s p e c i f i c a n d d e p e n d s o n f a c t o r s s u c h a s i n j e c t i o n r a t e

, r e l a t i v e p e r m e a b i l i t y

, d e n s i t y a n d m o b i l i t y o f f l u i d s a n d r o c k h e t e r o g e n e i t y

. 1 2 T r a n s p o r t o f C O 2 o v e r d i s t a n c e s g r e a t e r

t h a n 6 0 m i l e s i s l i k e l y t o b e p r o h i b i t i v e l y e x p e n s i v e

. 1 3 I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e h o w e v e r t h a t t h e

m o r e C O 2 t h a t i s s t o r e d

, t h e g r e a t e r t h e a m o u n t t h a t w o u l d b e r e l e a s e d t o t h e a t m o s p h e r e i f a n y

l e a k a g e r a t e i s a c c e p t e d

. E i t h e r w a y

, e v e n a t i n y r a t e o f l e a k a g e c o u l d u n d e r m i n e a n y p u t a t i v e

c l i m a t e b e n e f i t o f C C S

. A l e a k a g e r a t e o f j u s t 1 % o n 6 0 0 G t o f s t o r e d c a r b o n ( 2 1 6 0 G t C O 2 o r

a b o u t 1 0 0 y e a r s ’ w o r t h o f C O 2 e m i s s i o n s f r o m f o s s i l f u e l s )

, c o u l d r e l e a s e a s m u c h a s 6 G t o fc a r b o n ( 2 1

. 6 G t C O 2 ) p e r y e a r b a c k i n t o t h e a t m o s p h e r e

. T h i s i s r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t t o c u r r e n t

t o t a l g l o b a l C O 2 e m i s s i o n s f r o m f o s s i l f u e l s

. 1 4

I t m u s t b e r e i t e r a t e d t h a t m o n i t o r i n g a n d v e r i f i c a t i o n o f C O 2 s t o r a g e s i t e s i s a l o n g

- t e r m t a s k

. I t

d o e s n o t e n d w h e n t h e s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r i s c a p p e d

. P o s t

- o p e r a t i o n a l m o n i t o r i n g o v e r h u n d r e d s

o f y e a r s i s e s s e n t i a l

. S i g n i f i c a n t r i s k s c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t a n d m u s t b e m o n i t o r e d b o t h t o p r e v e n t a

c a t a s t r o p h i c s h o r t t e r m r e l e a s e a s w e l l a s l o n g

- t e r m s l o w l e a k a g e

. E v e n i f i t i s f e a s i b l e t o b u r y

h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f g i g a t o n s o f C O 2 , t h e r e i s n o w a y t o g u a r a n t e e t h a t s t o r a g e l o c a t i o n s

w i l l b e a p p r o p r i a t e l y d e s i g n e d a n d m a n a g e d o v e r t h e t i m e s c a l e s r e q u i r e d

.

G r e e n p e a c e ’ s c o n c e r n s a n d c o m m e n t s o n r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n y s u c c e s s f u l r e g u l a t i o n

G i v e n t h e s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l r i s k s o f C C S a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f i m p r o p e r C O 2 s t o r a g e t h e r e

a r e a n u m b e r o f c r i t i c a l a r e a s t h a t a n y r e g u l a t i o n a l l o w i n g C C S m u s t a d d r e s s

. S i n c e t h e b r e a d t h

a n d e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h e S D W A i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a d d r e s s a l l o f t h e s e c o n c e r n s w e u r g e t h a t

b e f o r e a n y C C S i s p e r m i t t e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e g u l a t o r y s t r u c t u r e i s p u t i n p l a c e

.

G r e e n p e a c e w o u l d u r g e t h a t a t t h e m o m e n t i t i s t o o e a r l y t o p r o p o s e r u l e s f o r a n a s c e n t i n d u s t r y

l i k e C C S t h a t i s n o t f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d

. T h e a b i l i t y t o s a f e l y d e p l o y c a r b o n c a p t u r e a n d

s e q u e s t r a t i o n o n a c o m m e r c i a l

- s c a l e h a s n o t b e e n p r o v e n a n d w i l l n o t b e f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d u n t i l

p i l o t p r o j e c t s a r e c o m p l e t e d a n d r e v i e w e d

. T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y a n d

D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y s h o u l d a w a i t t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e s e s t u d i e s i n o r d e r t o b e a b l e t o m a k e

a n i n f o r m e d s e t o f r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e f f e c t s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s

. D e l a y i n g

t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y p r o c e s s u n t i l i t i s f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d w i l l p r e v e n t c o m p a n i e s f r o m

i n v e s t i n g i n p r o c e s s e s t h a t c o u l d h a v e s e v e r e u n d e s i r a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s

.

W h e n i t i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e t o d e v i s e a r e g u l a t o r y s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n a n d o v e r s i g h t o f

t h e c a r b o n s t o r a g e a n d s e q u e s t r a t i o n i n d u s t r y i t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t t h e r e g u l a t i o n i s c o m p r e h e n s i v e

a n d c o m p l e t e

. G i v e n t h e m y r i a d o f r i s k s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h C C S

, o u r c o n c e r n w o u l d b e t h a t t h e

S a f e D r i n k i n g W a t e r A c t i s n o t o f s u f f i c i e n t s c o p e a n d e n f o r c e a b i l i t y t o h a n d l e a r e g u l a t o r y f i e l d

a s b r o a d a s C C S

. W h i l e t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a n d d a n g e r o u s c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n u n d e r g r o u n d

c a r b o n s t o r a g e a n d d r i n k i n g w a t e r

, t h e r e a r e m a n y o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t s o u t s i d e o f t h e

p u r v i e w o f t h a t a c t

. W e c a n n o t e m p h a s i z e s t r o n g l y e n o u g h t h e a b s o l u t e n e e d t h a t a n y

r e g u l a t i o n o f C C S b e c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n d i n c l u s i v e o f a l l a r e a s o f t h e c a p t u r e

, s t o r a g e

, a n d

m o n i t o r i n g

. I t i s s i m p l y n o t p o s s i b l e f o r s u c h a c o m p l e x a n d p o t e n t i a l l y d a n g e r o u s p r o c e s s t o b e

a d e q u a t e l y r e g u l a t e d w i t h p i e c e m e a l r e g u l a t i o n s

.

A f i n a l e s s e n t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t m u s t b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i s t h e v i t a l i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y f o r

g e o l o g i c a l l y s e q u e s t e r e d C O 2

. O n c e t h e C O 2 h a s b e e n p u m p e d i n t o t h e g r o u n d t h e r e m u s t b e a

c l e a r a n d d e f i n i t i v e p r o c e d u r e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h o i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n t i n u e d m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e

s a f e t y o f t h e s i t e a n d w h o i s l i a b l e f o r a n y d a m a g e s c a u s e d b y l e a k s o r o t h e r f a i l u r e s

. T h e

m e c h a n i s m f o r d e t a i l i n g t h e l e g a l a n d f i n a n c i a l l i a b i l i t y i n s u c h a c i r c u m s t a n c e a b s o l u t e l y m u s t

b e e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e a n y C C S p r o j e c t s c a n b e a l l o w e d t o b e g i n

.

W h i l e G r e e n p e a c e d e e m s i t n e c e s s a r y t h a t r e g u l a t i o n t h a t i s m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e i s d r a f t e d

b e f o r e a l l o w i n g a n y C C S

, t h e r e a r e s t i l l a s p e c t s o f t h e s e p r o p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n s w h e r e w e h a v e

c o m m e n t s

.

C o m m e n t s o n t h i s s p e c i f i c p r o p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n

O u r p r i n c i p l e c o n c e r n w i t h t h i s p r o p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n i s a l a c k o f s p e c i f i c i t y o n t h e r e q u i r e d p u r i t y

o f C O 2 b e i n g i n j e c t e d u n d e r g r o u n d

. S e q u e s t e r i n g l e s s p u r e C O 2 w o u l d b e l e s s e x p e n s i v e b u tc o u l d a l s o a f f e c t t h e s e a l i n g p e r f o r m a n c e o f a c a p r o c k

, i n c r e a s i n g t h e r i s k o f l e a k a g e a n d

e n v i r o n m e n t a l

. 1 5 T h e e v a l u a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e s h o w s t h a t t h e m a i n i m p u r i t y

– s u l f u r

d i o x i d e

, S O 2 - d i s s o l v e d i n w a t e r c r e a t e s a f a r s t r o n g e r a c i d t h a n d o e s d i s s o l u t i o n o f C O 2

. C r e a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l l e a k a g e p a t h w a y s m a y b e i n d u c e d

. M o b i l i z a t i o n o f m e t a l s i n m i n e r a l s o r

s o i l o f t h e s u b

- s e a b e d m a y b e h i g h e r

, l e a d i n g t o a g r e a t e r r i s k o f h a z a r d o u s l e v e l s o f t r a c e

m e t a l s

. 1 6 C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h h a s p r o v e n t h a t i t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t a n y C O 2 s t r e a m i n j e c t e d i n t o

u n d e r g r o u n d r e s e r v o i r s i s a t l e a s t a t 9 9 % p u r i t y t o m i n i m i z e r i s k s o f a c i d i f i c a t i o n a n d

m o b i l i z a t i o n o f t o x i c m e t a l s i n t o d r i n k i n g w a t e r a n d t h e s o i l

. 1 7

G i v e n t h e r i s k o f c o r r o s i o n a n d l e a k a g e

, w e a r e s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t i v e o f p r o p o s a l ’ s l a n g u a g e

r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e o f a n t i

- c o r r o s i v e c e m e n t s a n d o n l y a l l o w i n g a n t i

- c o r r o s i v e m a t e r i a l s f o r w e l l s

. T h i s i s a n e s s e n t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t t o r e d u c e t h e r i s k s o f l e a k s i n t h e w e l l s w h i c h w i l l l i k e l y p a s s

t h r o u g h d r i n k i n g w a t e r r e s e r v o i r a n d p o s e t h e m o s t s e v e r e r i s k t o t h e w a t e r s u p p l y

. A n o t h e r p a r t o f t h e p r o p o s a l t h a t w e s u p p o r t i s t h e l a n g u a g e d e t a i l i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r p o s t

c l o s u r e s i t e c a r e

. I t i s k e y t h a t a f t e r a c a r b o n s t o r a g e s i t e i s c l o s e d t h a t i t c o n t i n u e s t o b e

m o n i t o r e d a n d w e s u p p o r t t h e 5 0

- y e a r t i m e f r a m e w r i t t e n i n t h e p r o p o s a l

. G r e e n p e a c e h o w e v e r

c o u l d n o t b e s u p p o r t i v e o f a n y l e n g t h o f t i m e s h o r t e r t h a n t h i s o r a n y p o t e n t i a l a l l o w a n c e f o r

e a r l y t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p o s t

- c l o s u r e s i t e c a r e

.

C o n c l u s i o n

G r e e n p e a c e w o u l d u r g e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s n o t t o d i v e r t r e s o u r c e s f r o m p r o v e n s o l u t i o n s t o

c l i m a t e c h a n g e s u c h a s w i n d a n d s o l a r p o w e r a n d e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y t o i n v e s t i n r i s k y t e c h n o l o g y

s u c h a s C C S

. H o w e v e r

, s h o u l d s u c h p l a n s b e a p p r o v e d i t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t t h e r e g u l a t o r y s t r u c t u r e

i s i n p l a c e t o m i n i m i z e t h e r i s k a n d a s s i g n p r o p e r f i n a n c i a l a n d l e g a l l i a b i l i t y f o r a n y d a m a g e s

r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e c a r b o n s t o r a g e

. T h e r e a r e a s p e c t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n t h a t a r e

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h w h a t G r e e n p e a c e b e l i e v e s m u s t b e d o n e

, h o w e v e r a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e

r e g u l a t o r y s t r u c t u r e i s w h a t i s t r u l y n e e d e d b e f o r e a n y c a r b o n c a p t u r e a n d s e q u e s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t

c a n b e a l l o w e d t o s t a r t

.

F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g C a r b o n C a p t u r e a n d S t o r a g e p l e a s e s e e t h e

a t t a c h e d r e p o r t “ F a l s e H o p e : W h y C a r b o n C a p t u r e a n d S t o r a g e W o n ’ t S a v e t h e C l i m a t e ”

.

S i n c e r e l y

,

E m i l y R o c h o n

C l i m a t e a n d E n e r g y C a m p a i g n e r

G r e e n p e a c e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

O t t h o H e l d r i n g s t r a a t 5

1 0 6 6 A Z A m s t e r d a m

T h e N e t h e r l a n d s

J o n a t h a n W i g g i n s

G l o b a l W a r m i n g C a m p a i g n

G r e e n p e a c e U S A

7 0 2 H S t r e e t

, N W

W a s h i n g t o n

, D C 2 0 0 0 1

# R e f e r e n c e s

1 I P C C

, 2 0 0 7 : C l i m a t e C h a n g e 2 0 0 7 : F o u r t h A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t o f t h e I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l P a n e l o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e

[ S o l o m o n

, S

. , D

. Q i n

, M

. M a n n i n g

, Z

. C h e n

, M

. M a r q u i s

, K

. B

. A v e r y t

, M

. T i g n o r a n d H

. L

. M i l l e r ( e d s

. ) ]

. C a m b r i d g e

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s

, C a m b r i d g e

, U n i t e d K i n g d o m a n d N e w Y o r k

, N Y

, U S A

, 9 9 6 p p

. 2 U

. S

. E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y

, " I n v e n t o r y o f U

. S

. G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s a n d S i n k s : 1 9 9 0

- 2 0 0 5

, " A p r i l

2 0 0 7

. B a s e d o n c a l c u l a t i o n o f C O 2 e m i s s i o n s f r o m t a b l e s 3

- 1 a n d 3

- 3

. 3 N a t i o n a l E n e r g y T e c h n o l o g y L a b o r a t o r y ( N E T L )

, 2 0 0 7

, C o s t a n d P e r f o r m a n c e B a s e l i n e f o r F o s s i l E n e r g y P l a n t s

, N E T L

, A u g u s t 2 0 0 7

, < h t t p : / / w w w

. n e t l

. d o e

. g o v / e n e r g y

- a n a l y s e s / p u b s / B i t u m i n o u s B a s e l i n e

_ F i n a l R e p o r t

. p d f >

4 R u b i n

, E e t a l

. , 2 0 0 5

. T e c h n i c a l S u m m a r y i n I P C C S p e c i a l R e p o r t o n C a r b o n D i o x i d e C a p t u r e a n d S t o r a g e

, B

. M e t z

e t a l

. , E d i t o r s

. 2 0 0 5

, C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : C a m b r i d g e

, U

. K

. 5 A b a n a d e s

, J C e t a l

. , 2 0 0 5

. S u m m a r y f o r P o l i c y m a k e r s i n I P C C S p e c i a l R e p o r t o n C a r b o n D i o x i d e C a p t u r e a n d

S t o r a g e

, B

. M e t z e t a l

. , E d i t o r s

. 2 0 0 5

, C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : C a m b r i d g e

, U

. K

. 6 D i e s e n d o r f

, M

, 2 0 0 6

. C a n g e o s e q u e s t r a t i o n s a v e t h e c o a l i n d u s t r y ?

, i n J B y r n e

, L G l v o e r & N T o l y ( e d s )

, T r a n s f o r m i n g p o w e r : E n e r g y a s a s o c i a l p r o j e c t

, E n e r g y a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y S e r i e s v o l

. 9

, 2 0 0 6

, p p

. 2 2 3

- 2 4 8

. 7 K h a r a k a Y K

, C o l e D R

, H o v o r k a S D

, G u n t e r W D

, K n a u s s K G & F r e i f e l d B M

, ‘ G a s

- w a t e r

- r o c k i n t e r a c t i o n s i n f r i o

f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g C O 2 i n j e c t i o n : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e s t o r a g e o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s i n s e d i m e n t a r y b a s i n s ’

, G e o l o g y

,

v o l

. , 3 4

, n o

. 7

, 2 0 0 6

, p p

. 5 7 7

– 5 8 0

. 8 B r a d s h a w

, J e t a l

. , 2 0 0 7

. C O 2 s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y e s t i m a t i o n : I s s u e s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t a n d a r d s

, I n t e r n a t i o n a l

J o u r n a l o f G r e e n h o u s e G a s C o n t r o l 1

, 2 0 0 7

, p p

. 6 2

- 6 8

. 9 M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y ( M I T )

, 2 0 0 7

. T h e F u t u r e o f C o a l

, M I T

, B o s t o n 2 0 0 7

,

< h t t p : / / w e b

. m i t

. e d u / c o a l / T h e

_ F u t u r e

_ o f

_ C o a l

. p d f >

. 1 0 I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n e r g y A g e n c y ( I E A ) G r e e n h o u s e G a s R & D P r o g r a m m e

, 2 0 0 7

. C O 2 c a p t u r e r e a d y p l a n t s

, 2 0 0 7 / 4

, M a y 2 0 0 7

. 1 1 G o u g h

, C & S h a c k l e y

, S

, 2 0 0 6

. T o w a r d s a M u l t i

- C r i t e r i a M e t h o d o l o g y f o r A s s e s s m e n t o f G e o l o g i c a l C a r b o n

S t o r a g e O p t i o n s

, C l i m a c t i c C h a n g e 7 4

, 2 0 0 6

, p p

. 1 4 1

- 1 7 4

. 1 2 I b i d

1 3 C S I R O s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n P a r l i a m e n t a r y H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s I n q u i r y i n G e o s e q u e s t r a t i o n

T e c h n o l o g y

, A u g u s t 2 0 0 6

. 1 4 A z a r

, C e t a l

, 2 0 0 6

, C a r b o n C a p t u r e a n d S t o r a g e f r o m F o s s i l F u e l s a n d B i o m a s s

– C o s t s a n d P o t e n t i a l R o l e i n

S t a b i l i z i n g t h e A t m o s p h e r e

, C l i m a c t i c C h a n g e v o l

. 7 4

, 2 0 0 6

, p p

. 4 7

- 7 9

. 1 5 A b a n a d e s

, J C e t a l

. , 2 0 0 5

. S u m m a r y f o r P o l i c y m a k e r s i n I P C C S p e c i a l R e p o r t o n C a r b o n D i o x i d e C a p t u r e a n d

S t o r a g e

, B

. M e t z e t a l

. , E d i t o r s

. 2 0 0 5

, C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : C a m b r i d g e

, U

. K

. 1 6 P r u e s s K

. , X u T

. , A p p s J

. , G a r c i a J

. ( 2 0 0 3 ) : N u m e r i c a l m o d e l i n g o f a q u i f e r d i s p o s a l o f C O 2

. S P E J o u r n a l

, 4 9

- 6 0

1 7 K n a u s s K

. , J o h n s o n J

. , S t e e f e l C

. ( 2 0 0 5 ) : E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i m p a c t o f C O 2

, c o

- c o n t a m i n a n t g a s

, a q u e o u s f l u i d a n d

r e s e r v o i r r o c k i n t e r a c t i o n s o n t h e g e o l o g i c s e q u e s t r a t i o n o f C O 2

. C h e m

. G e o l

. 2 1 7

, 3 3 9

- 3 5 0

## This document is not availabl e in Regulations.gov since it

contains copyrighted material that may not be reproduced

without consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Read ing Room to view

or receive a copy of this docu ment. Requests for copies may be

made as follows:

In person/writing:

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334

Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744

Email:

docket-customerservice@epa.gov

### Letter ID: 0129

Commenter: Emily Rochon

Organization: Greenpe ace International

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23060 Letter Lines: 31 to 57

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: Action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

In 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said warming of the

climate system is unequivocal and direct ly linked to human activity, primarily

the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming threatens America and the world with

more frequent and more severe storms, ne w outbreaks of diseases and crop pests,

and massive coastal flooding. Scientists ha ve documented that Arctic sea ice is

melting rapidly and the Western United States already may be in permanent

drought. The climate crisis requires urgent action. To avoid the worst effects,

global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 and then start falling by at

least 50% by 2050, compared to 1990 leve ls. Developed countries must reduce

their greenhouse gas emissions by at l east 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020,

and at least 80 percent below 1990 leve ls by 2050.[FN1 1 IPCC, 2007: Climate

Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.

Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.]

Coal is the largest emitter of global warm ing pollution in our country. In fact,

emissions from coal-fired power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the

global warming pollution in today’s atmo sphere.[FN2 2 U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:

1990-2005," April 2007. Based on calculation of CO2 emissions from tables 3-1

and 3-3.] Yet world governments are pla nning to build hundreds of coal power

plants in the next decade. If such pl ans go ahead it will be impossible for

governments to reduce greenhouse gas emi ssions enough to seriously tackle

climate change.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that mitigating climate change and regulating the use of

coal are outside the scope of the Class VI GS ru lemaking. The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is

to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the

United States and provide requirements to prev ent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of

the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions The requirements apply to owners or operators

of wells that will be used to inject CO2 into th e subsurface for the purpose of long-term storage.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23061 Letter Lines: 59 to 89

1

### Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a False Solution

As carbon capture and storage is increasin gly discussed as a possible mitigation

option by some governments, it is nece ssary to highlight some critical

limitations and concerns surrounding th is technology. Serious problems are

inherent with any CCS program. CCS is a very cost intensive procedure, it

increases the costs of powe r generation by 40 to 80% comp ared with conventional

power plants (depending on the location of the plant and the storage site, and

the transport and capture technology used). In addition to the extra costs of

operation, the US Department of Energy cal culates that installing carbon capture

systems will almost double plant cost s.[FN3 3 National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL), 2007, Cost and Performa nce Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants,

NETL, August 2007, < http://www.netl.doe.gov /energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous

Baseline_Final Report.pdf>] This will l ead to electricity price hikes of

anywhere between 21 and 91% .[FN4 4 Rubin, E et al., 2005. Technical Summary in

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capt ure and Storage, B. Metz et al.,

Editors. 2005, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.] Additionally, using

CCS technology greatly reduces the efficien cy of power plants, up to 30% more

fossil fuel must be burned to achieve th e same power output.[FN5 5 Abanades, J C

et al., 2005. Summary for Polic ymakers in IPCC Special Re port on Carbon Dioxide

Capture and Storage, B. Me tz et al., Editors. 2005, Camb ridge University Press:

Cambridge, U.K.] Finally, CCS produces cons iderable additional long-term costs.

Monitoring and verification over decades is necessary to guaran tee the retention

of the stored carbon dioxide. To have a ny potential climate benefit, buried CO2

must remain underground forever. Howeve r, safe, permanent storage cannot be

assured; the world has no experience with the deliberate long -term storage of

anything, let alone CO2. Th e longest running storage project, Sleipner in

Norway, is only 12 years old. While some geological reservoirs could have the

specific combination of physical features and chemical processes that trap

injected CO2 and essentially hold it for a ll time, there is insufficient data or

practical experience to know whether there are enough.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that GS is dangerous. The GS regulation builds

upon the long-standing protective framework of th e UIC program, which has been regulating the

injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing

framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale

GS of CO2. These additional prot ective requirements include more extensive geologic testing,

detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evalu ations, detailed requirements

for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection

monitoring and site care.

EPA acknowledges that, because all GS in the U.S. is associated with pilot projects, there are

unknowns regarding how GS projects will unfold a nd the practicalities of permitting, operating,

monitoring, and closing a GS proj ect. As a result, EPA is usi ng an adaptive approach to

2

### regulating GS. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review da ta on GS projects to

determine whether the appropriate amount a nd types of information and appropriate

documentation are being collected, and to determ ine if modifications to the requirements are

appropriate or necessary.

EPA clarifies that CCS operations and regula tion of energy costs are not within the UIC

Program’s authority. For additiona l information on EPA’s final regu latory approach, please see

the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23062 Letter Lines: 91 to 101

Comment Code: 1655 1.3.5.1 Concerns about Lake Nyos a nd Mammoth Mountain-type events

Comment: Beyond these problems inherent with any at tempt at carbon capture and storage,

there is a high potential for catastrophi c results from a flawed CCS program.

The greatest risk from CCS is for a leak to occur and the integrity of the

storage space to be compromised. This is not only a highly da ngerous risk, but a

highly likely one as well. A natural ex ample of the danger of CO2 leakage

occurred at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986. Following a volcanic eruption, large

quantities of CO2 that had accumulated on the bottom of the lake were suddenly

released, killing 1700 people and thousa nds of cattle over a range of 15

miles.[FN6 6 Diesendorf, M, 2006. Can geos equestration save the coal industry?,

in J Byrne, L Glvoer & N Toly (eds), Transforming power: Energy as a social

project, Energy and Environmental Policy Series vol. 9, 2006, pp. 223-248.]

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the CO2 releases at Lake Nyos is a valid analogue for

GS. GS sites have little in co mmon with the physical se tting or mechanism that resulted in the

release of naturally-occurri ng CO2 trapped at the bottom of Lake Nyos, a stratified tropical lake

that suddenly overturned through a process know n as "limnic eruption." No injection was

associated with this event, and this site would not have been considered sufficiently geologically

stable to be issued a Class VI permit based on the rigorous site characte rization requirements at

§146.82 (e.g., including lack of confining units).

GS takes places thousands of feet below the Ea rth’s surface within porou s spaces in deep rock

formations. CO2 is injected for GS through techni cally engineered wells with multiple barriers

designed to isolate the injectate in the well and protect formations outside the well materials. The

injected CO2 is stored in geologic formations unde rneath confining layers of rock that act as

natural barriers to leakage. It is unlikely that CO2 would escape from a GS site that is properly

characterized, operated, monitored, and closed. During the site sele ction process, operators of

Class VI wells identify and evaluate the appropr iateness of a site for GS of CO2. The evaluation

includes the identification of surface and subsurfa ce features such as deep stratified lakes and

other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthe rmore, during GS operation, injection pressures

and formation conditions are monitored to av oid overpressuring the storage formation.

3

### Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23063 Letter Lines: 102 to 107

Comment Code: 1612 1.3.1.1 Leaching and mobilization of cont aminants; reactions in injection

zone

Comment: Leaking carbon dioxide from underground st orage sites could also contaminate

fresh water reservoirs rendering them unfit for human consumption, especially if

other contaminants -- e.g. mobilized (toxic) metals like sulfates, or chloride

-- reach dangerous levels. If options are c onsidered where CO2 is to be stored

in saline formations then the consequen ces of the displacemen t of in-situ saline

waters (brines) must be considered. Th e displaced brines migrate, possibly

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS

including the potential for leakage of CO2 into USDWs which may result in the mobilization of

substances that could endanger USDWs. The pur pose of the Class VI requirements is to

minimize and mitigate potential/identified risk s through proper site characterization, well

construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site car e, and site closure. The rule at §146.82

requires owners or operators to submit extensive data about a proposed GS site to identify (and

eliminate) sites with potential for unacceptabl e fluid movement. EPA believes that this

information, in conjunction with AoR modeli ng required at §146.84, will help identify the

potential for brine migration as a result of pressu re displacement. Subsequently, the Director and

owner or operator can identify ways to mitigate th is risk prior to injection or, if necessary, the

Director can deny an injection permit. During injection operations, operators must extensively

monitor ground water quality and pressure ch anges to provide early detection of any

unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90.

Operators must also develop and follow an emer gency and remedial respons e plan to address any

adverse effects associated with the GS operati on as specified in §146.94 and maintain financial

responsibility to address contam ination as specified in §146.85.

EPA has funded research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory using models

covering a range of USDW fluid and host re servoir properties (based upon 38,000 groundwater

samples) indicating that, although leakage of CO2 into a USDW could result in the increase of

certain trace element concentrations, including arsenic and lead, rarely exceeding EPA drinking

water standards (Birkholzer et al., 2008). EPA has also examined potential methods for

conducting treatment of water affected by a CO2 leak; this study is pr esented in the final

rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23064 Letter Lines: 108 to 114

Comment Code: 1660 1.3.6 Ecosystem impacts (soil, air, surface water)

Comment: contaminating fresh water reservoirs in their path. Infiltrati on of saline water

into groundwater or the shallow subsurf ace impacts wildlife habitats, restricts

or eliminates agricultural uses of lan d, and pollutes aquifers and surface water

bodies.[FN7 7 Kharaka Y K, Cole D R, H ovorka S D, Gunter W D, Knauss K G &

Freifeld B M, ‘Gas-water-rock interac tions in frio formation following CO2

4

### injection: Implications for the storag e of greenhouse gases in sedimentary

basins’, Geology, vol., 34, no. 7, 2006, pp. 577-580.] The efficiency of

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are potent ial risks associated with GS. The

purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks

through proper site characterization, well cons truction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site

care, and site closure and to en sure protection of USDWs. EPA be lieves that the measures in the

GS rule that directly mitigate the possibility of CO2 leakage out of the injection zone will also

indirectly mitigate the risks to receptors mentioned by the commenters, including fresh water,

wildlife, ecosystems, and agriculture.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23065 Letter Lines: 115 to 129

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: trapping mechanisms depends on the "migrati on rate of the CO2, which itself is

highly dependent on the rock and fluid pr operties and geological characteristics

of each site".[FN8 8 Bradshaw, J et al ., 2007. CO2 storage capacity estimation:

Issues and development of standards, International Journa l of Greenhouse Gas

Control 1, 2007, pp. 62-68.] This means that each storage site would need to

undergo detailed characterizations both to determine suitability, as well as to

assess the likelihood of leakage. As l ong as CO2 is present in geological

formations, there is a risk of leakage -- it can migrate laterally or upwards to

the surface. Undetected fractures in cap rocks or those created by injecting CO2

at too high a pressure can provide anothe r avenue for CO2 to escape. Improper

design and construction of wells can also create opportunities for leakage.[FN9

9 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M IT), 2007. The Future of Coal, MIT,

Boston 2007, .] The implications

for climate mitigation as well as the other environmental and public health

risks make leakage a serious concern.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique

challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other

adverse impacts. However, the fi nal, tailored, Class VI require ments address the large volumes

of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the pr esence of water, and potential

impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting,

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care re quirements in the GS rule to

prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

EPA believes that building upon th e existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well

requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulation provides a foundation for protecting

USDWs that is based on successful field experience and lessons l earned about CO2 injection in

other applications. Class I well ow ners or operators have experience with site characterization,

well construction, and monitoring procedures and t echnologies that are app licable to Class VI

wells. Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the uniq ue properties of CO2.

To successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of

5

### injected CO2 must be well understood. For ex ample, at the Weyburn CO2-ER project in

Saskatchewan, the distribution, phase, and interaction of injected fluids with native fluids were

modeled and monitored to ensure maximum recovery (of CO2) and target circulation in a thin

subsurface formation (Wilson and Monea, 2004).

The Agency clarifies that, under SDWA, EPA does not have the authority to directly regulate air

emissions via CO2 leakage to the surface and comme nts related to such issues are outside the

scope of this rulemaking. However, the GS rule requires that CO2 injected for GS remain

confined in the injection zone. Leakage outside of the injection zone as defined in a Class VI

permit, which may be evidenced by leakage to the surface, would be a permit violation if a

USDW is endangered.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23066 Letter Lines: 131 to 153

Comment Code: 1370 1.1.3.5 US storage capacity

Comment: For CCS to have a significant impact in reducing atmospheric concentrations of

CO2 to reduce climate change, a significan t amount would have to be stored. The

IEA estimates that for CCS to deliver any meaningful climate mitigation effects

by 2050, 6000 projects each injecting a milli on tons of CO2 per year into the

ground would be required.[FN 10 10 International Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse

Gas R&D Programme, 2007. CO2 capture rea dy plants, 2007/4, May 2007.] At the

moment, it is not clear that it will be t echnically feasible to capture and bury

this much carbon, i.e. whether there are e nough storage sites, or that they will

be located close enough to power plants. National level estimates are largely

based on modeled average values and theref ore remain a source of considerable

uncertainty.[FN11 11 Gough, C & Shackley, S, 2006. Towards a Multi-Criteria

Methodology for Assessment of Geologica l Carbon Storage Options, Climactic

Change 74, 2006, pp. 141-174.] The vast majori ty of these estimates quantify

technical capacity assuming that the whole of a reservoir is accessible to store

CO2 in its pore volume. This can easily lead to unrealistically high numbers as

the fraction of pore volume that can be us ed for CO2 storage is site-specific

and depends on factors such as injecti on rate, relative perm eability, density

and mobility of fluids and rock heterogeneity. [FN12 12 Ibid ] Transport of CO2

over distances greater than 60 miles is likely to be prohibitively

expensive.[FN13 13 CSIRO submission to the Australian Parliamentary House of

Representatives Inquiry in Geoseque stration Technology, A ugust 2006.] It is

important to note however that the more CO2 that is stored, the greater the

amount that would be released to the atmo sphere if any leakage rate is accepted.

Individual Response: The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that

underground injection control activities, such as GS projects, are permitted, sited, constructed,

operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of US DWs. Ensuring storage

capacity is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

EPA clarifies that other federal agencies (e .g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have

6

### conducted research on available storage capacity a nd made determinations of the feasibility of

capturing and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along

with private entities, have identified large ar eas for potential sequestrati on in capacity studies.

For example, in 2008, USGS initiated developmen t of a methodology for estimating the capacity

to store CO2 in geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, US GS published a proposed,

risk-based methodology for GS capacity estimation. This report, Development of a Probabilistic

Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Ca rbon Dioxide Storage, is available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/of r2009-1035.pdf and is available in the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23067 Letter Lines: 154 to 161

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: Either way, even a tiny rate of leakag e could undermine any putative climate

benefit of CCS. A leakage rate of just 1% on 600 Gt of stored carbon (2160 Gt

CO2 or about 100 years’ worth of CO2 emi ssions from fossil fuels), could release

as much as 6Gt of carbon (21.6 Gt CO2) per year back into the atmosphere. This

is roughly equivalent to current tota l global CO2 emissions from fossil

fuels.[FN14 14 Azar, C et al, 2006, Carbon Ca pture and Storage from Fossil Fuels

and Biomass--Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere, Climactic

Change vol. 74, 2006, pp. 47-79.]

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique

challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other

adverse impacts. However, the fi nal, tailored, Class VI require ments address the large volumes

of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the pr esence of water, and potential

impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting,

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care re quirements in the GS rule to

prevent leakage from injection formations and pr otect USDWs. The Agency clarifies that, under

SDWA, EPA does not have the auth ority to directly regulate air emissions via CO2 leakage to

the surface. However, the GS rule requires that CO2 injected fo r GS remain confined in the

injection zone. Leakage outside of the injection zone as defined in a Class VI permit, which may

be evidenced by leakage to the surface, would be a permit violation if a USDW is endangered.

EPA believes that building upon th e existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well

requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulation provides a foundation for protecting

USDWs based on success, field experience, and le ssons learned about CO2 injection in other

applications. Class I well owners or operators ha ve experience with site characterization, well

construction, and monitoring procedures and technol ogies that are applicab le to Class VI wells.

Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the unique properties of CO2. To

successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of

injected CO2 must be well understood. At the Weyburn CO2-ER project in Saskatchewan, the

distribution, phase, and interaction of injected fluids with native fluids were modeled and

monitored to ensure maximum recovery (of CO2) and target circulation in a thin subsurface

formation (Wilson and Monea, 2004).

7

### Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23068 Letter Lines: 163 to 170

Comment Code: 5000 2.8 Proposed Well Plugging and Post-In jection Site Care Requirements

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care

Requirements

Comment: It must be reiterated that monitoring and verification of CO2 storage sites is a

long-term task. It does not end when th e storage reservoir is capped. Postoperational monitoring over hundreds of year s is essential. Significant risks

continue to exist and must be monito red both to prevent a catastrophic short

term release as well as long-term slow leak age. Even if it is feasible to bury

hundreds of thousands of gigatons of CO 2, there is no way to guarantee that

storage locations will be appropriately designed and managed over the timescales

required.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that post-injection m onitoring should continue for an

extended time, but disagrees that hundreds of years of monitoring would be needed. EPA

believes that a 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective

monitoring period. EPA bases this on a review of research studies, industry reports, existing

environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. Furthermore, EPA believes that a

50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is not overly burdensome, does not exaggerate

the risks associated with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently

protects USDWs from endangerment. For this re ason, the final GS regulation retains the 50 year

post-injection site car e timeframe, as specified in §146.93(b)(1).

The GS rule provides the Director with discretio n to extend the timeframe (e.g., if, after 50 years,

monitoring data indicates that the CO2 plume ma y endanger a USDW), or shorten the timeframe

(if the owner or operator can demonstrate that th e GS project does not pos e an endangerment to

USDWs), under 146.93(b)(2). Such a demonstration will be site-specific, a nd based on pressure

monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA clarifies that in no cases will site closure be authorized

until the owner or operator demonstrates to the satis faction of the Director that the site no longer

poses a risk of endangerment to USDWs.

Under SDWA authority, owners or operators of injection well s must ensure protection of

USDWs from endangerment and are subject to liability for enforcement under the Act.

Once an owner or operator has met all regulator y requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells

and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or

operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance.

Furthermore, his or her financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was

not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may

be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (i ncluding violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain

circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory

noncompliance even after site closure was a pproved if the Direct or relied on erroneous

information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provi ded by the owner or operator when approving

8

### site closure.

Additionally, an owner or operator may always be subject to any action, such as administrative

orders or civil actions, the Admi nistrator deems necessary to prot ect the health of persons under

§1431 of the SDWA after site closure if there is unanticipated migrati on towards or into a

USDW that causes or threatens imminent and substantial endange rment to public health. If the

owner or operator fails to comply with the order, he or she may be subjec t to a civil penalty for

each day in which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

The Agency clarifies that Class VI well permits may be transferred to another owner or operator

pursuant to §144.38 whereby generally all other regulatory re sponsibilities are transferred to that

new owner and operator, includ ing all potential liabilities a ssociated with meeting the

requirements of that permit. Please see further clar ification on the issue of long term liability in

the preamble of the final rule.

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

remedies, or under other federal statutes incl uding, but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992.

EPA does not have authority to tr ansfer SDWA or other legal liab ility for Class VI wells to the

State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further

discussion of EPA's final approach.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23069 Letter Lines: 172 to 202

Comment Code: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: Greenpeace’s concerns and comments on requi rements for any successful regulation

Given the serious potential risks of CCS and the consequences of improper CO2

storage there are a number of critical areas that any regulation allowing CCS

must address. Since the breadth and enfor ceability of the SDWA is not sufficient

to address all of these concerns we urge that before any CCS is permitted a

comprehensive regulatory stru cture is put in place.

Greenpeace would urge that at the moment it is too early to propose rules for a

nascent industry like CCS that is not fully understood. The ability to safely

deploy carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial-scale has not been

proven and will not be fully understood un til pilot projects are completed and

reviewed. The Environmental Protection Ag ency and Department of Energy should

await the completion of these studies in or der to be able to make an informed

set of regulations with full understanding of the effects and consequences.

Delaying the creation of the regulatory process until it is fully understood

will prevent companies from investing in processes that could have severe

undesirable consequences.

9

### When it is the appropriate time to de vise a regulatory structure for the

creation and oversight of the carbon stor age and sequestration industry it is

critical that the regulation is comprehens ive and complete. Given the myriad of

risks associated with CCS, our concern woul d be that the Safe Drinking Water Act

is not of sufficient scope and enforcea bility to handle a regulatory field as

broad as CCS. While there are significan t and dangerous connections between

underground carbon storage and drinking wate r, there are many other significant

impacts outside of the purview of that act. We cannot emphasize strongly enough

the absolute need that any regulation of CCS be compre hensive and inclusive of

all areas of the capture, storage, and m onitoring. It is simply not possible for

such a complex and potentially dangerous proc ess to be adequately regulated with

piecemeal regulations.

Individual Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience curre ntly exist to

develop regulations for GS wells. The GS ru lemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about

safe injection practices regulat ed by the UIC Program. While de veloping the GS regulation, EPA

evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon

Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. EPA is monitoring

international GS efforts currently operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner

Project in the Norwegian No rth Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in

Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Sa lah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and

Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking

include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix,

(in Iceland). These projects are designed to opera te for decades and plan to cumulatively inject

over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and

legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that establishing a regulat ory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology provides a framewor k for injecting CO2 so that the activity does

not result in endangerment of USDWs.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to re gulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after

finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plan s to collect and review data every six years on

GS projects to determine whether the appropr iate amount and types of information and

appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the

requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulati on is limited to injection of CO2, and that all

requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from

endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory

clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping the final GS rule,

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies

10

### (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau

of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate areas of potential applicability of other

Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of

GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information,

please see the discussion entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

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

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23070 Letter Lines: 204 to 210

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care

Requirements

Comment: A final essential consideration that must be taken into acc ount is the vital

issue of liability for geologically se questered CO2. Once the CO2 has been

pumped into the ground there must be a clear and definitive procedure for

determining who is responsible for conti nued monitoring of the safety of the

site and who is liable for any damages caused by leaks or other failures. The

mechanism for detailing the legal and fina ncial liability in su ch a circumstance

absolutely must be established before a ny CCS projects can be allowed to begin.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that assuring financial responsibility for pos t-injection site

care and site closure is an important component of ensuring that USDWs are protected; the GS

rule, at §146.85 requires owners or operators to maintain financ ial responsibility throughout the

post-injection site care timeframe. The goal of fina ncial responsibility is to ensure that financial

resources are available to prevent enda ngerment of USDWs from improper plugging,

remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences

financial difficulties. EPA adds th at owners or operators must perform extensive post-injection

site monitoring until it can be demonstrated th at the GS site no longer poses a risk of

endangerment to USDWs, as required at §146.93. For additional information, please see the

discussion of post-injection site car e in the final rule and preamble.

Additionally, an owner or operator may always be subject to any action the Administrator deems

necessary to protect the health of persons under §1431 of the SD WA after site closure if there is

unanticipated migration towards or into a US DW that causes or threatens imminent and

substantial endangerment to public health. The action may include issuing administrative orders

or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief. If the owner or operator fails to comply with

the order, they may be subject to a civil penalt y for each day in which such violation occurs or

failure to comply continues.

Furthermore, the Agency clarifies that, after s ite closure, an owner or operator may, depending

on the fact scenario, remain liable under tort and other remedies, or under other Statutes

11

### including, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §

9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23071 Letter Lines: 218 to 236

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

Comment: Our principle concern with this proposed regulation is a lack of specificity on

the required purity of CO 2 being injected undergr ound. Sequestering less pure

CO2 would be less expensive but could also affect the sealing performance of a

caprock, increasing the risk of leakage a nd environmental.[FN15 15 Abanades, J C

et al., 2005. Summary for Polic ymakers in IPCC Special Re port on Carbon Dioxide

Capture and Storage, B. Me tz et al., Editors. 2005, Camb ridge University Press:

Cambridge, U.K.] The evaluation of existi ng literature shows that the main

impurity -- sulfur dioxide, SO2 - dissolved in water creates a far stronger acid

than does dissolution of CO2. Creation of additional leakage pathways may be

induced. Mobilization of metals in minerals or soil of the sub-sea bed may be

higher, leading to a greater risk of h azardous levels of trace metals.[FN16 16

Pruess K., Xu T., Apps J., Garcia J. (2003): Numerical modeling of aquifer

disposal of CO2. SPE Journal, 49-60] Curre nt research has proven that it is

critical that any CO2 stream injected into underground rese rvoirs is at least at

99% purity to minimize risks of acidifica tion and mobilization of toxic metals

into drinking water and the soil.[FN 17 17 Knauss K., Johnson J., Steefel C.

(2005): Evaluation of the impact of CO2, co-contaminant gas, aqueous fluid and

reservoir rock interactions on the geol ogic sequestration of CO2. Chem.Geol.

217, 339-350]

Individual Response: The GS rule does not set generic purity standards for CO2 injectate

streams (e.g., a percent CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresse s the quality and quantity of

impurities by requiring owners or operators to submit information on the source of the CO2 and

its physical and chemical propertie s. Specifically, the GS rule requi res the owner or operator to

submit data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physi cal characteristics of

the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and informati on on the compatibility of the

CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone a nd minerals in both the in jection and the confining

zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information can help

the Director determine the potential for geoche mical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and

the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution

of formation minerals.

Since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), prohibits the inj ection of CO2 streams that meet the definition

of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, injection of a CO2 stream that is determined to be a

hazardous waste may only occur in a Cla ss I hazardous waste injection well.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23072 Letter Lines: 238 to 242

12

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

comment)

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

Comment: Given the risk of corrosion and leakage, we are strongly supportive of

proposal’s language regarding the use of anti- corrosive cements and only

allowing anti-corrosive materials for wells. This is an essential requirement to

reduce the risks of leaks in the wells which will likely pa ss through drinking

water reservoir and pose the most severe ri sk to the water supply. Another part

Individual Response: EPA agrees that cement that is co mpatible with the CO2 and formation

fluids will enhance Class VI well integrity. In the interest of USDW protection, the Agency

requires that the materials used in Class VI wells must be compatible with fluids with which they

may come in contact, as specified in §146.86(b)(1).

EPA adds that the requirements at §146.86(b)(1) st ate that the materials must meet or exceed

standards developed for such materials by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM

International, or comparable standards acceptable to the Director. This requirement invokes the

expertise of these bodies and allows the use of technologies that are yet to be developed.

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23073 Letter Lines: 242 to 248

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

Comment: water reservoir and pose the most severe ri sk to the water supply. Another part

of the proposal that we support is the language detailing th e procedure for

post-closure site care. It is key that after a carbon storage site is closed

that it continues to be monitored and we support the 50-year timeframe written

in the proposal. Greenpeace however could not be supportive of any length of

time shorter than this or any potential allowance for early termination of the

ost-closure site care.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that a 50 year post-injection site care

timeframe represents a reasonabl e and protective post-injection site monitoring period in most

cases and available data, including data s ubmitted by commenters, do not support a different

default timeframe. EPA bases this on a review of research stud ies, industry reports, and existing

environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. Furthermore, EPA believes that a

50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is not overly burdensome, does not exaggerate

the risks associated with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently

protects USDWs from endangerment. For this re ason, the final GS regulation retains the 50 year

post-injection site car e timeframe, as specified in §146.93(b)(1).

13

### However, EPA disagrees that a 50 year post-injection s ite care timeframe should be an absolute

minimum. Rather, EPA believes, as some commenters suggest, that there will be circumstances

where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plum e and pressure front no longer

pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the GS rule offers owners or operators

flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion

to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injecti on period based on site-specific

data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a

Class VI well owner or operator to demons trate, during the permitting process based on

substantial data, that an alternative PISC tim eframe may be appropria te if it ensures nonendangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to

adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of

USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of

sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various

geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection.

Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW

impacts as the commenter suggests.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23074 Letter Lines: 252 to 254

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: Greenpeace would urge the United States no t to divert resources from proven

solutions to climate change such as wi nd and solar power and energy efficiency

to invest in risky technology such as CCS. However, should such plans be

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that other climate change mitigation technologies such as

wind and solar power and energy efficiency, are not within the UIC program’s authority and

outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA empha sizes that the UIC pr ogram’s authority under

the SDWA is focused on ensuring that Class VI CO2 injection projects are permitted, sited,

constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23075 Letter Lines: 254 to 257

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care

Requirements

Comment: to invest in risky technology such as CCS. However, should such plans be

approved it is critical that the regulat ory structure is in place to minimize

the risk and assign proper financial and legal liability for any damages

14

### resulting from the carbon storage. There are aspects of the proposed regulation

Individual Response: EPA agrees that assuring financial responsibility for corrective action on

wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial

response at GS sites is an important component of ensuring that USDW s are protected. The goal

of financial responsibility is to ensure that financial res ources are available to prevent

endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the

event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties.

EPA has specified acceptable financial responsibility instruments in the final regulation at

§146.85. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance (available on EPA's website at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm) that describes the types of

financial instruments that owners or operato rs may use to meet financial responsibility

requirements for GS wells. EPA plans to take the concerns expressed by commenters on the

proposed regulation, including the acceptability of various financial instruments and the

timeframe for PISC, into consideration as it develops the financial resp onsibility guidance.

Letter ID: 0129 Comment ID: 23076 Letter Lines: 258 to 260

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed

Comment Code: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: that are consistent with what Greenpeace believes must be done, however a more

comprehensive regulatory structure is wh at is truly needed before any carbon

capture and sequestration projec t can be allowed to start.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA believes that establishing a regulatory

framework for the future development and depl oyment of CCS technolo gy provides a framework

for injecting CO2 so that the activity doe s not result in endangerment of USDWs.

Further, as described above, the Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related

issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficien cies for owners or ope rators. For additional

information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other

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

15