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 lett er

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 exp lained 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

charact er 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 rulema king 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 decis ions 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 lett er 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 complet eness

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.Public Comments and EPA Responses to Comments Provided at

Denver, CO Hearing on the Proposed Rule

EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule on October 2, 2008 in Denver, CO.

Eighteen (18) people commented at the Denver hearing, including:

• Scott Anderson; Environmental Defense Fund

• Ginny Brannon; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments

• Dave Bufalo

• Steve Crookshank; American Petroleum Institute

• Becky English; Sierra Club

• Kevin Frederick; Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

• Jonah Fruchter; Sierra Club

• Leslie Glustrome

• Cynthia Lane; American Water Works Association

• Nancy LaPlaca

• Doug Louis; Kansas Corporation Commission

• Barbara Massoner; Legacy Economy

• Mike Moore; North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association

• Dag Nummedal; Colorado Energy Resource Institute

• George Peridas; Natural Resources Defense Council

• Paul Pike; Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

• Olon Plunk; Excel Energy

• Talib Syed

Their comments are included in the hearing transcript in the first part of this file. The

second part of this file contains EPA’s responses to the comments.

Use the bookmarks in the PDF to locate a specific comment or response.MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson

12 with the Environmental Defense Fund and I think I would

13 like to begin by complimenting the EPA for having done

14 generally an excellent job with this proposed rule

15 making.

16 We think that an adequate regulatory regime

17 for CO2 sequestration is within sight. That is not to

18 say that we do not think that changes are needed. We

19 do see the need for quite a few changes in the rule,

20 but I think it is fair to characterize the changes we

21 have in mind as technical.

22 I would also like to start out by addressing

23 a couple of issues that are perhaps technically outside

24 the scope of this rulemaking. They may not actually

25 affect the wording of the rule, but they are certainly59

1 relevant to the subject.

2 First I would like to agree with Doug Louis

3 of the Kansas Corporation Commission and also the

4 people from the Department of Environmental Quality of

5 Wyoming that it is essential that this program be

6 funded adequately both at the federal, but also at the

7 state level. In round numbers, state UIC agencies

8 currently get about ten million dollars from the

9 federal government to administer these programs. It

10 has been estimated that they really need even under the

11 current regulatory system, something more like fifty

12 million dollars and it has further been estimated that

13 for the state programs to do a good job both with the

14 existing UIC classes and Class VI that they may need

15 something more in the order of a hundred million

16 dollars and I realize you people at the table do not

17 have a hundred million dollars handy, but I think that

18 is a very important policy issue that perhaps the EPA

19 could help highlight with Congress.

20 And then secondly, I would like to agree with

21 American Waterworks Association about the point that

22 changing technical abilities for cleaning up water as

23 well as increasing water demand does make it important

24 that we not consider ten thousand parts per million to

25 be set in stone.60

1 Okay. I want to spend the rest of my time

2 talking about a few of the strengths of the rule and a

3 few opportunities for improvement.

4 We think the rule, the proposed rule has done

5 a very good job of keeping the focus on both CO2

6 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from

7 displaced brine. The confining zone in the rule is

8 required to contain both CO2 and displaced formation

9 fluids. The zone of elevated pressure as defined in

10 the rule focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids that

11 might be driven out of a US -- into a USDW. The

12 modeling requirements are modeling both of the CO2

13 plume extent and formation fluid movement. There is

14 the requirement for periodic monitoring of groundwater

15 quality and geochemical changes above the confining

16 zone which would help detail whether either CO2 or

17 brine is leaking and there are adequate response

18 provisions.

19 A couple comments on some issues that we

20 still have under review, but I can at least go this far

21 at this time. We would urge the EPA to give serious

22 consideration to the points that many have made about

23 not restricting this rule to sites that are below the

24 lowest USDW. And we would also urge the EPA to give

25 serious consideration to modifying the requirement for61

1 cementing the long string casing from top to bottom. We

2 will finish making up our mind about those issues by

3 the time we file written comments, but at this point, I

4 would say that those issues are worthy of serious

5 consideration.

6 I would also like to agree in part and

7 strongly disagree in part with my good friends from API

8 and the National Association of Carbon Capture and

9 Storage folks on this closure standard. The

10 disagreement is this; we think that to call the fifty

11 year default period arbitrary is just not accurate. If

12 it said fifty years period without any ability to flex

13 either direction, perhaps that would be arbitrary. Now

14 that said, that does not mean that we support the

15 proposed rule standard for approving site closure. In

16 fact, the opposite. We think it needs to be

17 substantially reworked and we do not even think you

18 necessarily need a default period in order to have a

19 solid performance standard for this. I am not going to

20 go into exactly what we would substitute instead, but I

21 can say that it will be generally consistent and

22 perhaps precisely the same as comments that are being

23 developed by the Ground Water Protection Council.

24 Other suggestion and improvements for the

25 rule are that coal seams, the basalts, hollowed out62

1 salt domes and shale are simply not ready for

2 commercial sequestration at this time. And that is

3 true whether or not they are below the lowest USDW. So

4 our recommendation is that the Class VI proposal

5 clearly be written not to apply to these sorts of

6 formations. We do favor continued experimentation in

7 these formations and some of them, especially coal

8 seams may become commercially viable in the future, but

9 for now we think they should be written, should be

10 permitted under Class V. We should await further

11 knowledge before deciding precisely that those

12 formations not to be regulated.

13 We like the fact that the rules place a lot

14 of importance on monitoring. In several instances, the

15 rules proposed using monitoring to modify the various

16 aspects of the operations, but we think the rules can

17 go further in this respect and we will spell that out

18 in our final comments.

19 The rule I believe, I believe the preamble

20 does mention the possibility of interference among

21 projects, but whether or not that is the case, we think

22 it is important that the rule contain a provision to

23 head off potential interference among projects. The

24 idea that seems to make sense to us is to flatly say

25 that a project cannot interfere with the effectiveness63

1 of a preexisting project and anytime there is an

2 overlap in the pressure fronts or footprint or however

3 else you might define it, we think there ought to be

4 inquiry made as to whether that would constitute

5 interference. A rule like that would force projects in

6 a single basin or brine formation to space themselves

7 at least somewhat properly.

8 We think the AOR's area of reviews need to be

9 calculated as intended and updated as necessary. We

10 think ten year updates is far too infrequent and we

11 think that there are some technical problems with the

12 way the AOR is defined in the rule. We believe the

13 EPA's intention is to use elevated pressure as the main

14 guide to AOR delineation, but in our judgment the

15 definition just does not say that.

16 Injection pressure limits. This is very

17 important and we think EPA's about halfway toward

18 addressing this properly. The half that seems to be

19 well done is that the proposed rule requires quite a

20 bit of geomechanical information to be submitted. The

21 kind of information that could be used, should be used

22 to determine whether or not there is a risk of induced

23 seismicity and to determine whether or not there is

24 risks of reopening otherwise closed faults and

25 fractures making them, making what starts out as a64

1 non-transmissive fault into a transmissive fault. So

2 the proposed rule calls for the information that

3 enables that kind of stuff to be calculated, but it

4 fails to require that information to be used as part of

5 the permitting process to inform the injection pressure

6 limits. Instead the rule uses the traditional sort of

7 injection pressure limit from oil and gas regulation

8 that says accepted as a percentage of fracture

9 pressure. The problem with that is that these other

10 problems I mentioned, induced seismicity and reopening

11 of faults can occur in lower pressures than say 90% of

12 fracture pressure, it is possible for one to comply

13 with the 90% of fracture pressure requirement and yet

14 still cause these other geomechanics related problems.

15 Well I do not even need that minute because

16 the last thing I had was to talk about the standard for

17 authorizing site closure, but I have already done that,

18 so thank you very much.MS. BRANNON: Good morning. My name is Ginny

13 Brannon and I am the Climate Change Manager at the

14 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments

15 and this morning I am testifying on behalf of the

16 Department.

17 My testimony will be quite brief. It is

18 pretty much just primacy over Class VI wells. Let me

19 first thank you for the opportunity to comment on the

20 proposed rule setting forth federal requirements under

21 the Safe Drinking Water Act for the underground

22 injection of carbon dioxide.

23 Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key

24 component in the promotion of premier coal

25 technologies. As a coal producing state in Colorado,73

1 we are especially interested in technologies that will

2 secure the industry's future in the face of the

3 challenges associated with reducing greenhouse gas

4 emissions and thereby mitigating the impacts from

5 global warming.

6 And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas

7 emissions is reflected in the Colorado Climate Action

8 Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

9 by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize that clean

10 air coal technologies can help us reach this goal and

11 may be a key component in reaching that goal, but

12 emerging solution such as geologic sequestration must

13 be technologically and environmentally sound and

14 supported by a viable and efficient regulatory

15 framework. With respect to that regulatory framework,

16 the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the states that

17 apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to

18 administer the underground injection control program.

19 These states referred to as primacy states must meet

20 the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs

21 including construction, operating, monitoring, testing,

22 reporting and closure requirements for well owners or

23 operators.

24 Additionally, the Safe Drinking Water Act

25 allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such74

1 as for only classes I, III, IV and VI under section

2 1422 or for Class II wells only under section 1425.

3 Colorado falls in this latter camp with

4 primacy for Class II wells only.

5 The proposed rule calls for another class of

6 wells, Class VI with the injection of carbon dioxide.

7 It is our contention the state should be able to seek

8 primacy for Class VI wells as a stand alone class just

9 as they do for Class II wells now. Because Class II

10 wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and

11 the proposed Class VI wells for CO2 injection are

12 similar in purpose and particularly suited as stand

13 alone classes of wells.

14 Also in addition to our own staff, Colorado

15 is home to a premier university and scientific

16 community such that we have the expertise in the event

17 we were to assume primacy for Class VI wells.

18 Finally geologic sequestration is only one

19 component in a broader carbon and capture, carbon

20 capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees

21 with EPA. By allowing states to acquire primacy for

22 Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the

23 responsibility of implementation and provide for more

24 comprehensive approach to managing carbon capture and

25 sequestration projects.75

1 Thank you so much for the opportunity to

2 comment on the proposed rule.16 MR. BUFALO: My name is Dave Bufalo. I am

17 retired. I am a licensed professional engineer. I

18 spent the last eighteen months studying the issue of

19 carbon dioxide and climate change.

20 With respect to the injection of CO2 and its

21 affect on water quality, I am most concerned about a

22 potential catastrophic failure of the environment

23 system. There is a lake in Africa that somehow or

24 another evolved a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide

25 in one massive instantaneous release and it killed all85

1 the villagers within some radius of that. So the issue

2 is, do we have fault systems that may allow this to

3 happen and what then is the proximity of the local

4 population base? That is my primary concern.

5 If we have a gradual leak of CO2

6 from a containment system, I do not see that as

7 catastrophic. It was once in the atmosphere, it has

8 under gone sequestration and now it comes back out. So

9 be it.

10 I recognize that the Supreme Court of the

11 United States has given the EPA the regulatory

12 authority to regulate CO2. Over the past eighteen

13 months, I have come to the conclusion that managed

14 production of CO2 is not the cause of global climate

15 change.

16 Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama

17 has written a book called Climate Confusion. In this

18 book he states that man's production of CO2 is

19 equivalent to one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000

20 molecules of the atmosphere over a five year period. So

21 when we hear these numbers of millions and millions of

22 tons of CO2 being released in the atmosphere, we must

23 put that in context of what part of that is generated

24 by man. Dr. Spencer thinks that this is not a

25 significant contribution to global warming.86

1 I have also read numerous articles, five

2 different books, consulted with several PhD.

3 Climatologists, in particular, Dr. William Gray from

4 Colorado State University who is known for his annual

5 forecast of hurricane activity. All of the literature

6 that I have read further indicate that man's production

7 of CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

8 The issue of CO2 causing climate change is

9 not a closed issue as some would have you believe.

10 I would refer you to a project called the

11 Petition Project written by the Oregon Institute of

12 Science and Medicine where over 31,000 scientists have

13 signed a petition to the President of the United States

14 of America saying to take drastic action with respect

15 to eliminating mass production of CO2 will not do

16 anything to minimize climate change.

17 So, I respect the EPA for its efforts and

18 attempts to do something to comply with the mandate by

19 the U.S. Supreme Court and to also respond to the

20 apparent public concern of climate change by man.

21 However, as we go forward the development of these

22 regulations, both the regulation of drinking water

23 quality and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge

24 the EPA to look closely at the cost benefit ratios of

25 what this is going to cost.87

1 I am now a certified old guy, 66 years old.

2 I have got gray hair, I wear tri-focals and my income

3 is fixed. Any type of environmental regulation without

4 proven benefits to the benefit of mankind is going to

5 cost all of us consumers money and that money could be

6 better spent doing something else other than pure

7 regulation. Thank you.1 MR. CROOKSHANK: Thank you. I have come

2 to testify today on EPA proposed rule on carbon dioxide

3 geologic sequestration wells under the underground

4 injection control program. I am Steve Crookshank,

5 Senior Economist for API the National Trade Association

6 of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. API

7 represents nearly four hundred companies involved in

8 all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry

9 including exploration and production, refining,

10 marketing and transportation as well as the service

11 companies that serve a quarter of our industry.

12 First I would like to provide some context

13 for our comments. Oil, natural gas and coal provide

14 approximately 85% of the world's energy. The power

15 plants, vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that

16 use these fuels produce more than twenty five billion

17 tons of CO2 emissions annually. While no single

18 technology is sufficient to mitigate human CO2

19 emissions, capturing CO2 and storing it in deep

20 underground formations could play an important role.

21 As an industry, we have over thirty-five

22 years experience safely transporting and injecting CO2

23 for enhanced oil recovery. While constantly evolving,

24 the technology, upgrading practices and regulatory

25 requirements have been developed for enhanced oil25

1 recovery are extensive, mature and generally

2 appropriate for CCS.

3 In U.S. alone, the oil and gas industry

4 operates over thirteen thousand CO2 EOR wells, over

5 thirty five hundred miles of high pressure CO2

6 pipelines and has injected over six hundred million

7 tons of CO2 for EOR alone all while maintaining an

8 excellent health environment and safety record.

9 Industry also has extensive experience in

10 large scale separation and re-injection of natural gas

11 streams. The largest operation of this kind is on the

12 north slope of Alaska where forty-seven trillion cubic

13 feet of natural gas consisting of about twelve percent

14 carbon dioxide has been cumulatively re-injected over

15 the past thirty plus years. The CO2 fraction

16 corresponds to approximately four hundred and twenty

17 million metric tons of CO2.

18 Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very

19 supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the

20 integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2

21 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of

22 flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule and of

23 the use of performance based approaches. Specific

24 examples include the proposed confining zone

25 requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring26

1 requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed

2 rule that should be reconsidered for further

3 improvement. The first of these is the proposal to

4 restrict injection into formations below the lower most

5 underground source of drinking water or USDW. This

6 requirement is not necessary for protection of USDW's

7 and would remove a vast number of viable formations

8 from consideration. Industry has shown they can operate

9 CO2 injection wells and EOR context without endangering

10 USDW's that are located below the injection zone. An

11 excellent example is the Saw Creek EOR project in

12 Wyoming which has a USDW directly below the injection

13 zone.

14 Moreover, under the proposed rule, there are

15 other measures that provide real assurance of formation

16 integrity and require operators to demonstrate that the

17 project will not endanger USDW's making the lower most

18 USDW restriction unnecessary.

19 EPA should also reconsider a proposed fifty

20 year default period proposed injection site care. EPA

21 offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected

22 period of fifty years. Establishing a fixed and

23 unusually long time period may create a significant

24 barrier for operators considering entry into CCS

25 operations. Criteria for determining the period post27

1 injection site care should be performance based and a

2 function of the site specific characteristics of the

3 project such as project size, geologic factors and the

4 relative risks of the project.

5 Clear guidelines also need to be established

6 regarding when operators have met the performance

7 standards that determine site closure. Specifically,

8 the standard that the project no longer poses an

9 endangerment to USDW's needs to be defined using

10 reasonable risk based criteria.

11 EPA should also reconsider its proposed well

12 construction and operating requirements which are much

13 more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary and do

14 not reflect industries thirty-five plus years of

15 success in injecting CO2 under the Class II UIC

16 program. Class II EOR wells constructed for these

17 projects and their operating practices have an

18 excellent record of mechanical integrity and protecting

19 USDW's.

20 Some of the proposed requirements such as

21 cementing the long string casing to surface are not

22 only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also interfere

23 with operations and could introduce unintended risks.

24 Additionally while unnecessarily creating a

25 regulatory gap between Class II wells and their28

1 operations and Class VI wells and their operations, EPA

2 is creating potential economic and operational barrier

3 to transitioning from EOR operations to storage

4 operations thereby further reducing the number of

5 target formations where CO2 can be stored.

6 In conclusion, API shares the same goal as

7 EPA to develop rules that facilitate the safe, secure,

8 long term storage of CO2. API is concerned that if by

9 being overly prescriptive in designing a new well

10 class, the proposed rule will hinder the development of

11 CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence of

12 hindering the innovations that could improve both well

13 security and performance. CCS is one of the essential

14 technologies that could help to ensure that we can

15 continue to produce clean energy society demands.

16 The points I have cited in my oral comments

17 are examples that illustrate our areas of concern. API

18 will be submitting more detailed written comments in

19 response to the notice.

20 Thank you for your attention.MS. ENGLISH: I requested five minutes when I

24 signed up, so although this could be a little longer

25 than that, I do not know.102

1 Good afternoon and thank you very much for

2 coming to Denver and allowing this public comment

3 period. My name is Becky English. I chair Sierra

4 Club's Energy Committee for the state of Colorado which

5 is called the Rocky Mountain Chapter. Sierra Club has

6 22,000 members in Colorado.

7 I wanted to make a few points this afternoon.

8 First, I wanted to ask that the comment period be

9 extended. These are very complicated issues for IGCC

10 and for carbon capture and sequestration. I notice

11 that EPA's six to nine months late in doing its due

12 diligence on this topic and because of the complication

13 of the process and the complication of the science and

14 of course, the public is even less able to comprehend

15 these issues than EPA is so I am asking you today, to

16 give us a six month extension for public comment on

17 this. It does not seem fair to ask us to do the hustle

18 to respond in thirty days.

19 I was wondering if this might have been part

20 of a pattern that some of us have noticed at EPA for

21 some hurry up processing before the Bush administration

22 runs out. Some of us frankly do not quite trust

23 Administrator Johnson's motives in this and we think we

24 need to have some time to digest this process.

25 Congress has been in a continuing resolution103

1 mode producing anyway and there is new information

2 coming out as I know you are even more aware of than I

3 am about some actual leaks of CO2 in process and these,

4 of course, would need to be considered not only by EPA,

5 but by the public and so I do not know if this is a

6 discursive mode, but I want to ask you a question of

7 process. Is my requesting this extension, does that

8 mean it will happen or do we need to file a formal

9 extension request?

10 FEMALE: [Indecipherable].

11 MS. ENGLISH: Okay. Thank you very much.

12 FEMALE: [Indecipherable].

13 MS. ENGLISH: Okay, okay. The answer was to

14 wait for the end of my comments and then to go to Q &

15 A, so.

16 Secondly I wanted to point out that permit

17 applications should not be able, applicants rather,

18 should not be able to use proprietary software if they

19 are not willing to disclose their modeling data. And

20 their operating assumptions and explain their research

21 methods more fully for a transparent, for transparency

22 with the public; people such as myself and Sierra Club.

23 We need complete transparency in order to give adequate

24 public input. That is just obvious. Modeling data

25 should have been provided well before the beginning of104

1 this thirty day period, this comment period. Again, we

2 need more time.

3 I also want to point out that a remediation

4 plan should have been developed by now to deal with all

5 possible contamination events in tandem with this

6 particular process especially in view of EPA's, some of

7 EPA's past failures to perform adequate risk monitoring

8 and timely detection of remediation of contamination.

9 Obviously, a remediation plan needs to be in place

10 along with this particular proposal. Please provide us

11 with that remediation plan and give the public time to

12 comment on that as well.

13 EPA's management of carbon capture and

14 sequestration operations should be absolutely

15 transparent to the public and so today, I want to call

16 for real time online postings and RSS feeds of all

17 incidents no matter how minor to interested members of

18 the public. EPA should be providing such reporting for

19 all incidents already and not just for carbon

20 sequestration leaks, but for really I think all

21 incidents across your entire realm of responsibility.

22 Again, with the transparency, the public needs to know

23 what is going on a lot easier than it currently is for

24 us to find things out.

25 I am not a geologist or a mining engineer,105

1 but I think I have some common sense and as a U.S.

2 citizen, I just must insist that EPA adopt a more

3 comprehensive method for evaluating IGCC and carbon

4 sequestration, carbon capture and sequestration in view

5 of the now well known fact that carbon based fuels are

6 roasting our atmosphere and rapidly reducing the

7 viability of our planet.

8 EPA must develop its own models of the

9 overall life cycle of carbon based fuel processes. A

10 good model would give this lay person satisfying

11 answers to some naive, but necessary questions.

12 Does it make any sense at all to be expending

13 more energy than coal actually yields and more money

14 than could ever be justified with comprehensive life

15 cycle accounting to widely used coal as a fuel source

16 in the first place or by extension to perform carbon

17 capture and sequestration? Does it net out to

18 administer this stuff with hearings like this knowing

19 what we already know? To accept as taxpayers the well

20 known liabilities to fish and wildlife habitats and

21 human health? To do the appropriate and necessary

22 greenhouse gas reduction accounting? To deal with

23 interstate boundary and commerce issues? To mine and

24 process the coal with all the environmental degradation

25 and health costs that we know are associated with that;106

1 to transport it to its destinations and then spend the

2 fuel and human resources and fuel again to send the

3 trains back empty? To burn it, gasify it, liquify it,

4 whatever and then spend more money and more energy

5 trying to put CO2 back into the ground from whence it

6 came in the first place, for heaven's sake? And then,

7 and then importantly trying to guess, guess how

8 effective that process might be since we are lacking

9 longitudinal data and I am wondering do reliable

10 methods even exist to monitor that the sequestered CO2

11 is staying put? We are getting new information that it

12 is not staying put at least in a few cases, but even

13 this non-scientist here knows that gasses have a

14 tendency to seek the surface. I can see that when I

15 drink my 7-up that I like every afternoon. The bubbles

16 like to go up and as many others here can attest to

17 better than I, CO2 leakage at the surface can cause

18 serious public health and safety issues so. And then

19 of course, not to mention that we have been undoing the

20 energy intents given costly sequestration exercise that

21 we just gone through and oh by the way, reintroducing

22 CO2 again above ground as a greenhouse gas. So I am

23 asking you, does this make any sense at all to even be

24 in the business of doing these activities?

25 How about an EPA rule that goes like this.107

1 No use of any form of energy that does not yield more

2 net energy across its process life cycle than it

3 actually contains in its primary energy capture mode.

4 Short of that, I must call today for ending the current

5 inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC

6 and carbon capture sequestration. We need a more

7 comprehensive law or regulation.

8 So in addition to asking for more time for

9 public comment then, on behalf of Sierra Club's 22,000

10 members in the state of Colorado, thank you very much

11 for your consideration. And now did you want to ask me

12 anything?15 MR. Corra: I cede my time to my colleague,

16 Kevin Fredrick.

17 MR. BIERNAT: Okay, Mr. Frederick.

18 MR. FREDRICK: Good morning. Kevin Fredrick,

19 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. I am the

20 Program Manager for the Underground Injection Control

21 Program at the Wyoming Department of Environmental

22 Qualities Water Quality Division.

23 I would like to provide some comments today

24 on behalf of myself and Mr. John Corra, the Director of

25 the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.45

1 First of all, let me start with a few general

2 comments on EPA's proposed approach. With respect to

3 funding, EPA funding to states to administer federal

4 environmental programs such as the underground

5 injection control program continues to decline in terms

6 of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work

7 anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country

8 alone, substantial additional skills and resources

9 would be required at the state level in order to

10 develop and implement effective permitting and

11 oversight programs. It is imperative that EPA

12 recognize that need and begin to consider establishing

13 special provisions to set aside and identify funds

14 specifically for the use by states and tribes that they

15 will need in order to effectively develop and operate

16 these types of permitting programs.

17 Secondly, we believe that additional

18 clarification and guidance on financial assurance

19 instruments and their appropriate use with respect to

20 different phases of CO2 sequestration projects is

21 needed in order to provide a guideline that states may

22 actually begin to use with respect to evaluating the

23 financial assurance requirements and the appropriate

24 use of various types of financial instruments.

25 Lastly, U.S. EPA should seriously review and46

1 consider the comments that will be provided in the

2 future in this proposed rule by the Ground Water

3 Protection Council. The Ground Water Protection

4 Council has a working committee comprised of members

5 from industry, state regulatory agencies, and

6 environmental interest groups that are reviewing the

7 proposed rule and we believe we will be providing

8 important comments that EPA should consider in

9 reviewing the proposed rule.

10 A few specific comments on issues where we

11 agree with EPA's proposed rule. We believe that permit

12 applications for GS sites should include several plans,

13 not currently required under existing UIC regulations.

14 These plans include a monitoring, a testing plan and an

15 area of review and corrective action plan and a post

16 injection site care and site closure plan.

17 We agree that the directors should be

18 provided discretion to shorten or lengthen the proposed

19 post injection site care monitoring period based on

20 performance information.

21 There are areas that we agree with EPA that

22 discretion allowed to the director should be provided

23 to determine or require grandfathering the construction

24 requirements for existing Class I and Class II wells

25 and Class V wells seeking a permit for geologic47

1 sequestration of CO2.

2 Discretion for identifying and characterizing

3 additional confining and containment zones of the

4 primary confining zone that could further impede

5 vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure

6 dissipation.

7 Discretion to allow the use of proprietary

8 models. Wyoming, in particular, has options available

9 for applying for confidential treatment of proprietary

10 models and we believe that should be allowed at the

11 discretion of the director as well.

12 And finally discretion to allow for a phased

13 approach to corrective action.

14 There are a few areas which we do not agree

15 with EPA's proposed approach. Especially prohibiting

16 injection into formations if they are above the lower

17 most USDW. We believe it is imperative that the

18 director be allowed discretion to allow injection above

19 or between USDW's in specific geologic settings where

20 the depth of the USDW's preclude geologic

21 sequestration, make GS technically challenging or

22 significantly limits storage capacity. Such approval

23 by the director would allow injection between USDW's

24 and thereby allow injection above the lower most USDW.

25 In most circumstances it may be demonstrated that the48

1 USDW's would not be in danger.

2 Furthermore, we support allowing directors to

3 exempt aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in

4 accordance with the requirements of 40CFR 144.7. This

5 essentially allows directors upon accepting primacy to

6 exempt aquifers which he specifically identifies.

7 We support allowing directors to exempt

8 aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in accordance

9 with the requirements of 40CFR 146.4. This allows

10 exemption of aquifers if they contain hydrocarbons,

11 mineable minerals are contaminated or are located at a

12 definite location that makes future use impractical.

13 We support allowing directors to provide for

14 CO2 injection into aquifers previously exempted for

15 Class I and Class II injection operations provided that

16 the operator obtains a new aquifer exemption for the

17 purpose of geologic sequestration.

18 Given the variety of sub-surface geologic

19 conditions that exist both within and between states,

20 we would not support setting a minimum injection depth

21 requirement for CO2 geologic sequestration in lieu of

22 requiring that such injection take place below the

23 lower most USDW.

24 We do not support prohibiting the injection

25 of CO2 for long term storage into certain formations49

1 where they are above the lowermost USDW. As mentioned

2 before, we believe there are likely circumstances where

3 injection into formations including deep or mineable

4 coal seams situated above the lower most USDW may be

5 practical and protective of overlying and underlying

6 USDW's.

7 We do not support requiring a fixed time

8 frame for post injection site care of fifty years. We

9 recommend that a performance standard be applied to

10 determine a period of post injection site care. That

11 post injection site care continues until the plume is

12 stabilized and cannot endanger USDW's.

13 And finally, we do not support allowing, or

14 excuse me, not allowing for the use of separate

15 financial demonstrations to be submitted for the

16 plugging of the injection well and for the post

17 injection site care requirements. It may be

18 advantageous to require the approval of the well

19 plugging financial demonstration at permit issuance and

20 the post injection site care financial demonstration at

21 a later time.

22 In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the

23 process of developing a CO2 sequestration regulation.

24 We are looking very closely at EPA's proposed rule as

25 the model that we can use and apply in our state. We50

1 hope to have a draft of that regulation available

2 before the end of the year and thank you for the

3 opportunity to provide a public comment here today.24 MR. FRUCHTER: Hi. I just wanted to thank you

25 guys first of all for holding this public comment. I108

1 think it is great that the EPA is listening to

2 Coloradans about this important issue that will affect

3 our air, water and wallets.

4 My name is Jonah Fruchter and I am a

5 conservation organizer for the Sierra Club and while

6 the club is not opposed to carbon sequestration, we are

7 concerned with how it impacts the environment.

8 I would like to start my comments in talking

9 about the general approach the EPA has taken to

10 regulate sequestration. While it is great that we are

11 talking about keeping water clean in Colorado, I do not

12 understand why EPA is not taking a comprehensive

13 approach to environmental regulation. We should be

14 talking about how to regulate the capture, transfer,

15 leakage problems, public health issues and water safety

16 all in one package. I do not think it is helpful to

17 draft environmental regulation in a piecemeal fashion.

18 The environment does not function as separate

19 pieces. It is interconnected. What affects the water,

20 affects the land and what affects the land affects our

21 air and so on and so forth.

22 Furthermore it is cumbersome and inefficient to

23 form regulatory policy in separate parts. I would not

24 suggest you use piecemeal regulation for anything, I

25 mean, including the environment. Environmental109

1 regulation should always reflect a comprehensive

2 approach rather than the singular and isolated approach

3 we are taking with only regulating water safety.

4 With that said, I would like to focus on

5 transparency in regard to a future permit process. As

6 I said earlier, I think that the public comment in

7 deciding environmental regulation is important and I am

8 glad the EPA is hosting comment periods. However, this

9 is complicated stuff. If you would like comment from

10 Coloradans in the future, for example, when companies

11 have submitted permit applications, the public needs

12 more than thirty days to digest and respond to the

13 information submitted. We are not experts.

14 One way of helping with this to release this

15 permit information as it is submitted so that just like

16 the EPA, the public will have time to digest and

17 develop an informed opinion, so that is in regard to

18 future permitting that will occur.

19 There is no point in holding a comment period

20 if you do not give the public time to inform themselves

21 on the issues. The information itself also needs to be

22 accessible to the public and comprehensive in order to

23 create informed meaning filled public comment.

24 Companies need to submit their information in an

25 accessible manner such as using modeling software that110

1 is open access to the public. It does not require an

2 expensive purchase to view the modeling data. Also the

3 EPA should make it easy for anyone to gain access to

4 information and comment on provisional permits and

5 permanent permits. I do not see a point in having a

6 comment for one and not the other. The public should

7 be allowed to comment on all potential moves to develop

8 a carbon sequestration program in Colorado.

9 In closing, I would like to see the EPA make

10 it easier not more difficult for Colorado to have a say

11 in what happens in their own backyard. I hope you see

12 many more comment periods in the future in regards to

13 carbon sequestration technology and that we are allowed

14 as the public to comment on how sequestration develops

15 in the future. Thank you.MS. GLUSTROME: My name is Leslie Glustrome.

19 I am a member of many environmental groups, Co-founder

20 of Clean Energy Action, but today I am speaking for

21 myself and I want to thank EPA for this opportunity. I

22 just got an email that an old friend died, so I

23 apologize.

24 I think it is very important whenever we

25 think about these things to take a little higher level51

1 look at what is going on and the very first thing I

2 would like to do is ask EPA to schedule another public

3 hearing. There is very important ground water meeting

4 going on at the same time as this hearing. Many of the

5 people that know the most about protection of ground

6 water and underground injection are tied up and are

7 unable to be here which means that those of us that are

8 not experts are not able to benefit from their

9 expertise, so I would ask that EPA schedule another

10 public hearing and then extend the public comment

11 period for forty-five days after that so we have time

12 to learn from them, process what they have and submit

13 our comments at that point. I frankly hear through the

14 grape vine that it is not a coincidence that this

15 meeting was actually scheduled at a time when some of

16 the country's top ground water experts are not

17 available, so I would like to make sure that that gets

18 addressed before the rules are finalized.

19 Secondly, what I would like to do is remind

20 everyone that carbon dioxide is what you might call a

21 rock of a molecule. Once you have carbon and oxidize

22 it fully at four bonds oxygen, you have created the

23 molecule that is the foundation of all life on this

24 planet. It is, in a sense, by nature's design, a

25 molecule that does not go away. Climate scientists52

1 tell us that we will be dealing with the climate

2 science, climate change and warming of the planet for

3 thousands of years after we stabilize CO2 levels in the

4 atmosphere. This is not something to play around with.

5 This is not something to take lightly. This is not

6 something to assume that somehow the guys in the suits

7 have it figured out because we had a very clear

8 demonstration that that is not the case very recently.

9 Carbon dioxide by nature is a gas. It is

10 as the waterworks association person has reminded us,

11 corrosive. It is an acid forming gas, tenth grade

12 chemistry reminds us of that. Carbon dioxide and water

13 forms carbonic acid. When you are creating large

14 amounts of carbon dioxide, you will be getting large

15 amounts of carbonic acid and to state it very

16 scientifically, when you make large amounts of carbonic

17 acid, we can expect it to acidify the crap out of

18 everything that it comes into contact with. That means

19 that you change the carbonate cycle and you start to

20 liberate iron and manganese and arsenic and all, many

21 other metals, so this is not something to somehow think

22 that -- this is just a high level injection experiment.

23 We are talking about massive volumes of something that

24 is very different than something that we have.

25 EOR is not CCS. You put the CO2 under, you53

1 have no idea whether it stays under. Enhanced oil

2 recovery is not CCS. Put the CO2 under, you have no

3 idea whether it stays under the ground or not. There

4 has been essentially no monitoring there and all we

5 have to do is talk to the experts and they'll tell you

6 that; no do not assume that EOR is CCS. It is a very

7 different thing.

8 Lastly, another thing I would like to remind

9 EPA and all of the participants is that Tom Friedman

10 and his recent focus point book has pointed out that

11 Americans are learning that we can no longer be "as

12 dumb as we want to be" and that nothing will happen.

13 We have seen what has happened on Wall Street. We have

14 seen what happened in Iraq that was unjustified. Right

15 now, we are flying on the assumption that we have two

16 hundred years to rely on coal energy in this country.

17 Anybody who says that has not read the U.S.G.S (United

18 States Geological rvey) reports on coal availability.

19 That should be, in my mind, part of the preamble to

20 this so that we, as a country, can come to face the

21 fact that we actually only have a very small percentage

22 of that "200 years." A most recent study tells us

23 about 6%. Six percent of 200 is about 12 years depends

24 upon how we look at the Powder River field up in

25 Wyoming. So the reality is very different than what we54

1 have been told in the media. As Americans we like to

2 think this is not unusual actually. We have been told

3 lots of things that were not exactly true, so it is

4 time to sit up, pay attention and demand answers, not

5 demonstrate what we want them to be.

6 Next I would like to point out that life does

7 not follow models. You can do anything on a computer.

8 You can make assumptions about anything and when you

9 look at the models that have been used, Mike Celia

10 models or whoever you want to use, they make

11 assumptions that basically determine the outcome. In

12 the real world, it does not work that way. As a simple,

13 but I think a very important example, I am trained as a

14 biochemist, I worked at the University of Colorado for

15 eight years, I have worked at lots of other places, but

16 that is one of the things I have done. During that

17 eight years working with people who were highly trained

18 scientists, as I try to remember it, we had at least

19 six incidents where someone left the water running and

20 the drain plugged one way or another. That meant that

21 a highly expensive lab flooded and the water comes

22 leaking through to the lab underneath destroying and

23 many times very expensive, extremely expensive

24 scientific equipment. In eight years, my memory is six

25 of those occurrences. Now we happen to have been in55

1 sort of penthouse lab which meant we were on the top

2 floor, so you might think we might have been immune

3 from such a thing, but in a separate set of incidences,

4 all of the HVAC equipment is up on that ceiling and I

5 remember at least three times when the guys who were

6 in, maybe women, but the guys who were fixing the HVAC

7 equipment did something so our lab flooded and we lost

8 very expensive, both results and scientific equipment

9 so stuff happens. Life does not happen the way models

10 tell you it is going to happen. We have better ways to

11 do this. We aren't just talking about boiling water

12 when we are burning coal. We can boil water too by

13 using concentrating, solar power. We can ship the

14 electrons instead of shipping the coal over in nineteen

15 century railroad system. We do not have as much coal

16 as we have been told anyway, so all of these are very

17 important as we think about this question of what to do

18 and whether we should really be somehow thinking that

19 the only way to address climate change is to burn coal

20 and somehow try to smash a gas back into the planet and

21 hope it does not come back out. It is completely

22 absurd assumption in part because we do not have that

23 much coal anyway.

24 So, putting all that into context as we think

25 about these rules, the sequestration space in our56

1 country and around the planet, but for now our country

2 is going to be a very valuable commodity, so a

3 fundamental concept behind these rules should be that

4 sequestration space should only be used, because we can

5 be pretty sure it is going to fail. We do not know it

6 is probably not going to fail, it may or may not fail

7 in our lifetimes because we have got a bunch of old

8 folks in this room, but it -- we can be pretty sure

9 that it will fail. As this country moves beyond the

10 fossil fuel era and into the post fossil fuel era, how

11 excited are we going to be -- or are future generations

12 going to be about taking care of our carbon dioxide

13 disposals sites? You know, they are going to have

14 other things they are going to be tending to, all the

15 other problems we have left them.

16 So the fact, the concept that somehow they

17 are going to be managing these sites for hundreds and

18 thousands of years and paying great attention to them

19 is just absurd. And we need to start with that

20 assumption. They are not going to be well monitored

21 and they are going to fail. Carbon dioxide is a gas,

22 it is a corrosive gas and we can assume that it is

23 going to fail in due time and we have got millions of

24 wells around this country. So carbon dioxide space

25 should only be used to sequester carbon dioxide that57

1 has been used for processes for which there is no

2 reasonable alternative. That may be something like

3 making cement or making steel. Our children and

4 grandchildren may want to make that and they may need

5 to use coal to do that.

6 Every other process when we have a carbon

7 free alternative, that should be the first choice and

8 that should be a criteria before carbon, a CCS project

9 is approved because that CCS space, if we are able to

10 find some spaces that are actually able to stand up to

11 really thorough scientific analysis then that is going

12 to be a very valuable site and it should only be used

13 for processes that do not have a good alternative.

14 I would like to underscore the importance of

15 waiting for the results. You actually talked to

16 geologists who go up to Sleipner and actually look at

17 what is going on. Success, it is kind of like saying

18 Lehman Brothers is a successful company as long as you

19 are talking about September 1 or whatever that day was

20 before they failed so, success depends on how much data

21 you calculate and gather. So it is very important to

22 get that information just as the AWWA representative

23 pointed out, before we finalize any rules. It would be

24 completely absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make

25 sure that all data is completely transparent, fully58

1 available to the public and all assumptions are

2 identified clearly in plain English when you actually

3 decipher some of the scientific papers that are being

4 used to prepare the models, you realize that the

5 assumptions assume that it is all going to be fine.

6 Well if you assume it is part of the model, those will

7 be fine. That is not -- does not take a lot of brains,

8 but it is hard to dig down and find those assumptions,

9 so I think that is all. Thank you very much.15 MS. LANE: Good morning. My name is Cynthia

16 Lane and I am appearing here today on behalf of the

17 American Waterworks Association, AWWA. We are the

18 world's oldest and largest association dedicated to

19 safe water. Our utility members serve safe and

20 affordable drinking water to more than 80% of the

21 American people. We appreciate the opportunity to

22 provide our views this morning on the proposed rule for

23 geologic carbon sequestration.

24 Our overarching concern regarding geologic

25 carbon sequestration is the potential contamination of40

1 underground sources of drinking water from injection

2 activities and the potential for other unintended and

3 potential, possibly harmful consequences.

4 AWWA is particularly concerned about the

5 potential for contamination of sole source aquifers and

6 suggests that these aquifers be provided special

7 protective measures in the proposed rule. We also

8 support the portion of the rule that prohibits

9 injection of carbon dioxide above the lower most USDW.

10 As the demand for water increases during the

11 upcoming century and changes in climate impact

12 traditional water supplies, water utilities will look

13 for new sources of drinking water. It is likely that

14 as a result of these changes, there will be a greater

15 reliance on ground water for both new supplies and

16 conjunctive use. The possibility exists that utilities

17 might want to use some of these injection site aquifers

18 as new potable sources. In fact, in several

19 communities across the country, brackish waters that

20 are previously considered to be unusable because they

21 are above ten thousand TDS are now being used as

22 drinking water sources.

23 As desalination technology advances, the

24 brackish water sources are treated to EPA drinking

25 water standards and provided to water utility41

1 customers. As this technology improves, even more

2 saline water may be used in the future therefore AWWA

3 suggest that the selection standards for potential

4 injection aquifers and for USDW's be reviewed and

5 revised to prevent contamination of aquifers that may

6 be considered viable sources of drinking water in the

7 near future.

8 Owner/operators should be required to involve

9 local planning departments and water utilities to

10 determine if any of our subsurface aquifers may be used

11 as drinking water source in the future.

12 Water chemistry in the underground setting is

13 complex and AWWA has several technical concerns

14 regarding the potential for carbon sequestration to

15 contaminate USDWs. Preventing degradation of water

16 should not just be limited to contaminants with

17 established maximum contaminant levels, but should also

18 include other constituents whose presence may either

19 make ground water more difficult to treat or impact the

20 beneficial uses of at ground water.

21 Several references on geologic carbon

22 sequestration discussed changes in the carbonate cycle

23 resulting in lowered pH conditions and the release of

24 iron, manganese, arsenic and possibly other inorganics

25 into groundwater surrounding the injection zone.42

1 We need appropriate subsurface monitoring

2 technology identified and developed to prevent or

3 respond to potential contamination of USDW's, by these

4 and other chemical compounds.

5 EPA should provide guidance on acceptable

6 monitoring techniques and frequency, provide for a

7 consistent application of the monitoring requirements.

8 Another area of concern is often the lack of

9 good records of abandoned wells that tap the very same

10 strata used for carbon dioxide sequestration. There is

11 a presumption that even states with oil and gas or

12 mining operation have excellent, up to date reports and

13 have maps indicating abandoned wells and mines. This

14 is not always the case. Many states with extractive

15 industries do have maps and surveys, but they are not

16 sufficiently precise for geologic sequestration.

17 Studies have shown that injected carbon dioxide will be

18 able to find the abandoned wells. These wells allow

19 for the transmission of the carbon dioxide out of the

20 confined aquifer into potential USDW's and then

21 eventually to the surface.

22 AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and

23 pilot projects related to geologic sequestration of

24 carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the

25 results of these projects may not be available until43

1 after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration

2 has been finalized.

3 We believe that the results of this research

4 are crucial to their good development of a

5 comprehensive regulation that protects water resources

6 from the potential unintended consequences of geologic

7 carbon sequestration. In particular, we believe that

8 research on the potential pathways for contamination of

9 USDW's has not yet been completed. As a result, we are

10 concerned that the appropriate subsurface monitoring

11 methods and technologies have not been adequately

12 identified or developed.

13 We believe that the mechanical integrity

14 testing requirements are well developed in the rule and

15 that the one year time period that is required will

16 provide for the protection of USDW's.

17 Finally, AWWA supports the rule requirement

18 for the fifty year period for post injection site care.

19 However, we suggest that it be set at a fifty year

20 minimum with no discretion to shorten. Given the

21 potential scope of carbon sequestration, this will

22 provide for consistent approach across the U.S.,

23 provide strong long term protective measures of USDW's.

24 In conclusion, AWWA is concerned that the

25 proposed large scale sequestration of carbon dioxide in44

1 underground aquifers may have a significant impact on

2 the public, the environment and drinking water

3 utilities. We are also concerned that the results of

4 current research and pilot projects may not be

5 available until after EPA's regulation on geologic

6 carbon sequestration has been finalized. We are aware

7 of the impacts that climate change will have on water

8 utilities across the country or recognize that

9 something needs to be done to address climate change.

10 While we acknowledge that geologic carbon

11 sequestration has been identified as a means to combat

12 climate change, we urge caution as we proceed with this

13 technology. Thank you.2 MS. LePLACA: Hello my name is Nancy LePlaca.

3 I live at 4801 West Yale in Denver, 80219 and I am here

4 to comment today on EPA's underground injection control

5 on CO2 and to talk about a number of reasons why this

6 is a really, really bad idea and not someplace we

7 should put billions of dollars.

8 Every pound of coal burned creates three

9 pounds of CO2. It is very unique in that way. And CO2

10 is a very stable molecule and so it is very difficult

11 to capture and the theory behind this whole clean,

12 so-called clean coal is that you can burn coal in such

13 a way that you can capture the CO2 before it escapes

14 into the atmosphere and then liquify it and then

15 transport it somewhere and then pump it underground.

16 Well, just to compress the CO2 I understand from a guy

17 named Erin Coopman [phonetic] who is with a company

18 called RamGen [phonetic] and they make the big huge

19 machines that compress CO2 and so he gave me a price of

20 $17 a ton to compress CO2 so if you take your average

21 coal plant that maybe emits let's say a small one, or

22 medium sized one 3 million tons a year, then that is

23 going to cost three times 17 million dollars a ton for

24 every year, so that is like $51 million dollars. That

25 is just to compress the CO2. Then you are supposed to112

1 take this liquid CO2 and pump it underground. It is a

2 very highly corrosive liquid and that really wants to

3 become a gas again and when you cool the liquid, when

4 you cool the gas I mean into a liquid, you have to

5 bring it to a temperature of minus 240 Fahrenheit which

6 is an extremely energy intensive process; takes a lot

7 of power to do that and they estimate that it takes

8 about 20% of the plants power just to capture the CO2.

9 Now because no one in the United States has ever

10 actually captured that CO2, liquified it and pumped it

11 somewhere yet in combination with making electricity,

12 we do not even know what the total parasitic load would

13 be and some people estimate that that could be as high

14 as maybe 25 or 30%.

15 In addition when you pump liquid CO2

16 underground, you basically lubricate existing faults

17 and here in Denver, in the 1960's, they injected 165

18 million gallons of liquid toxic waste from Rocky

19 Mountain arsenal underneath the Denver basin and they

20 created some 1,500 seismic events between 1962 and

21 1967. Three of those events were over magnitude five.

22 My husband was a little boy living here then and most

23 people who lived here then and remembered that,

24 remember those earthquakes very clearly.

25 My father-in-law, George Bardwell,113

1 mathematician who taught at DU was approached by a

2 group of geologists headed by a guy named David Evans

3 who is now deceased. David Evans and my father-in-law

4 George E. Bardwell now 84 years old this year -- George

5 did a study for them correlating the injection of these

6 liquids with seismic events. The more they injected,

7 the more earthquakes there were. The less they

8 injected, the less earthquakes and actually George told

9 me that it took a long time and they really did not

10 come out with this blue ribbon panel report that they

11 were promising for years and years. They went to the

12 press, George Bardwell my father-in-law and these

13 geologists and the press would not report on it. They

14 went to the government and they said you know what

15 government, there is a real problem with this and the

16 government would not listen to them either.

17 And so the lesson for all of us I think is

18 that it is up to us citizens. I have been working on

19 coal issues for two years completely unpaid and myself

20 and my friend filed a complaint against a gasified coal

21 plant that was going to be built here in Colorado,

22 Excel Energy was proposing to build an IGCC plant over

23 4,000 feet elevation, get a $130 million from the feds

24 to build a gasified coal plant here in Colorado and we

25 let them know that this was not going to happen without114

1 a fight. They actually withdrew their proposal last

2 October and are not building one here. However, states

3 like Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois where there is a lot more

4 political pressure, they are still getting stuck with

5 these plants.

6 Future Gen which some have dubbed Never Gen

7 which is this prototype clean coal plant that was going

8 to be built in South Illinois, but is now up in the

9 air, that was going to cost a whopping $6,500 a

10 kilowatt. To put that in, to compare that to other --

11 costs of other electric generation, wind is about even

12 with escalated costs today about $2,000 a kilowatt to

13 build a plant. Concentrating solar is about $3,000 or

14 $4,000 a kilowatt, maybe $5,000 a kilowatt, but that

15 includes storage, [indecipherable] salt storage.

16 Nuclear power plants anywhere between $5,000 and

17 $10,000 a kilowatt and incidentally in the energy bill

18 right now, there is somewhere between 90 and 190

19 billion dollars in giveaways for nuclear industry and

20 the energy policy act of 2008.

21 And so what have I learned from all of this?

22 That wind is cheap. Energy efficiency is really,

23 really cheap. Concentrating solar is here, it is now,

24 it is working. It costs a fraction of what this

25 gasified coal costs and what are we doing? We115

1 [indecipherable] our planet so all the young people

2 that I see in this audience here, I see young people

3 and I am afraid of what the world is going to look like

4 when your hair looks like mine. I am fearful of that

5 and I am fortunate to have a husband and a family that

6 will let me quit my job and work for free full time on

7 this issue so that we can stop this stupidity because

8 all it takes is facts and information. And you know,

9 we can whine and the coal industry is spending $100

10 million to convince us that coal is clean. Nothing can

11 change this basic ratio. One pound of coal burned,

12 three pounds of CO2; a very, very stable molecule that

13 takes a lot of energy to compress, chill and then you

14 pump it somewhere. This is absolute madness.

15 And so I will submit my materials online.

16 You know it is interesting, here in Colorado, Excel

17 Energy was fighting a gasified coal plant in Minnesota.

18 I think most of the testimony that we used was from

19 Excel, so they were fighting against by a coal plant in

20 Minnesota because they did not own it, and they wanted

21 to build one here. Why? Because they want to put

22 billions of dollars into [indecipherable] base and

23 force rate payers, normal people to pay the bills. It

24 is sort of like this bail out, but right now where you

25 know, the big guys run away with the real cash so that116

1 when they make a profit, they get to keep it. When it

2 does not work, they just stick it to the tax payers and

3 so basically this is an incredible [indecipherable] and

4 I hope we have the good sense for all the young people

5 and all the people on this planet, the six billion

6 people on the planet who are not part of the problem.

7 They can only deal with what we here in the United

8 States, 5% of the population creating 25 to 40% of the

9 problems in the world deal them.

10 So thank you for the opportunity to speak.MR. LOUIS: Thank you. Good morning. I am

4 Doug Louis, Director of the natural gas division of the

5 Kansas Corporation Commission. And I am here today to

6 offer KCC's fast comments about the EPA's proposed

7 rules for underground injection of carbon dioxide for

8 the purpose of geological sequestration.

9 In the 2007 Kansas legislative session, House

10 Bill 2419 was passed and signed by Governor Sebelius

11 that directed the Kansas Corporation Commission to

12 write regulations regarding the subsurface injection of

13 CO2 for sequestration.

14 Kansas is one of only a few states that have

15 written or are in the process of writing regulations

16 regarding carbon sequestration, so after careful

17 examination of EPA's proposed rules and rules that

18 Kansas has written, I would like to offer these brief

19 comments and pose a few questions concerning the

20 existing CO2 projects.

21 For states that will have existing rules

22 specifically, what will happen to projects that are

23 permitted as classified, experimental wells after the

24 EPA passes its rule, but before the states adopt EPA's

25 rules?20

1 Another concept that needs to be fully

2 discussed is full-scale, not experimental injection

3 facilities that are applied for before proposed EPA

4 rules are adopted? How will they be permitted, that is

5 what class would they be, and who would permit them?

6 The proposed rule should address these specific

7 scenarios.

8 Concerning grand-fathering Class II wells to

9 Class VI wells. It is believed a great deal of

10 potential storage CO2 exists in CO2 floods after oil

11 production ceases. It is my concern that EPA's

12 stringent standards for well construction monitoring

13 and financial assurance will discourage well operators

14 from using this additional pore space for sequestration

15 thus causing waste. If a CO2 recovery operation has

16 successfully operated for many years, why should the

17 standards be raised simply because it undergoes a well

18 classification change?

19 Rules that apply to impurities of the CO2

20 injectate should be further discussed, determined and

21 defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be

22 more specific as to what geochemical data needs to be

23 collected; that is from the injection formation, the

24 confining layer or from the USDW.

25 KCC staff finds the cost of additional21

1 containment zones above the confining zones to be

2 confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and

3 the confining zone are competent, well understood and

4 monitored, there is no need to have a costly and

5 unneeded system of redundant containment zones above

6 the two.

7 Furthermore, the term containment zone has

8 was not in the definitions section or fully explained.

9 KCC staff agrees that the most accurate and

10 realistic method of determining AOR is computational

11 models which are updated regularly in conjunction with

12 modeling monitoring of physical trailers. A prescribed

13 fixed radius surrounding individual wells would not be

14 an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex

15 dynamic CO2 storage facility.

16 Phased corrective action for GS wells that

17 lie in front of the path of a CO2 plume would allow

18 companies to concentrate current capital expenditures

19 on wells that represent the highest risk. Wells that

20 might be affected in the distant future would be deemed

21 a lower risk, thus given a lower priority.

22 On proposed injection well construction

23 requirements. The proposed rule requires the long

24 string casing to be cemented in place along its entire

25 length. In a significant area of Kansas, cement cannot22

1 be circulated to surface in the bore hole casing

2 annulus in the primary cementing job. To accomplish a

3 continuous cemented interval would involve numerous

4 pipe perforations and cement squeezing operations.

5 This additional remedial work sacrifices mechanical

6 integrity of the pipe for a marginal possibility of

7 additional isolation of the injection zone.

8 Considering these unique conditions and

9 associated risk, Kansas regulations prescribed an

10 interval of five hundred feet of cemented interval

11 above the injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic

12 blend of CO2 resistant cement is not needed considering

13 the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history.

14 Proposed injection well operating

15 requirements. In the proposed rule, EPA is seeking

16 comment on the use of tracing material for detection of

17 fugitive CO2. KCC staff's opinion is the comparison of

18 baseline CO2 levels to monitored levels would provide

19 the same information as would costly and potentially

20 harmful tracing material. In our opinion, external

21 mechanical integrity testing at a one year frequency is

22 excessive and not warranted. The frequency which

23 Kansas requires in the regulation is once every four

24 years.

25 Proposed well plugging post injection site23

1 care and site closure requirements. The proposed rule

2 sets the post injection site care period at a default

3 period of fifty years. KCC agrees that the UIC program

4 director should have the authority to shorten or

5 lengthen the post injection site care period if the

6 owner/operator demonstrates a different time period is

7 appropriate.

8 Proposed financial responsibility and long

9 term care requirements. The proposed rule states EPA

10 would provide guidance to be developed at a later date

11 which describes recommended types of owner/operator

12 financial responsibility. On such an important

13 concept, should it not be addressed in the proposed

14 rule rather than clarified through guidance?

15 In conclusion, it is our vote the EPA will

16 fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states to

17 administer the program. The 1425 program re-administer

18 is not fully funded and has seen cuts each year for the

19 past three fiscal years. It has also become

20 increasingly difficult for states to manage numerous

21 programs that demand increasing budgets, but undergo

22 annual funding decreases.

23 Thank you for this opportunity to share our

24 comments and questions.MS. MASSONER: Good morning. My name is

15 Barbara Massoner. I am a member of Legacy Economy.

16 Legacy Economy is concerned with the growth of the

17 economy not just now during this crisis that we are

18 facing in the economy, but also we want to develop

19 strategies for growing an economy whose long term

20 prosperity is, in fact the basis for the next

21 generation's prosperity.

22 In the past week with the economic crisis, it

23 has illustrated it is essential to develop sensible

24 regulations before a crisis hits. Toning down

25 regulations based on threats from industry that the71

1 government oversight is going to have an impact on our

2 economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it

3 is the other way around. Therefore, I commend the EPA

4 for addressing carbon sequestration. It is essential

5 that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that we have

6 a healthy environment, but so that we can usher in a

7 prosperous economy for the next generation.

8 Coal and gas have powered our economy for the

9 past century. This however is a new century and it

10 requires new regulations and those regulations must

11 include externalities which we have not included in the

12 past. Only by including externalities can regulations

13 provide a level playing field for all involved. And

14 externalities in this case are not CO2's, but they also

15 are as Cynthia Lane pointed out with AWWA, a test that

16 includes CCWs, that is coal combustion wastes. And

17 those externalities are very important as they would

18 include chemicals such as mercury, lead, cadmium,

19 selenium and a list of other toxins.

20 We do not want to contaminate our groundwater

21 with those carcinogens. The fact is that CCWs, this is

22 a significant issue in that each year our power plants

23 produce enough of this stuff to fill a train of coal

24 cars that stretches from Manhattan to Los Angeles not

25 just once, not just twice, but three and a half times.72

1 It is a huge problem and the EPA has pointed out that

2 these toxins are carcinogenic and EPA has also stated

3 that there are no regulations for these toxins.

4 Therefore I urge the EPA when you are considering these

5 regulations on CO2 sequestration that you broaden them

6 to include CCWs. Stricter rules will not set us back

7 economically, but rather it is going to ensure that the

8 next generation has a prosperity to grow like our

9 generation has.

10 Thank you.MR. MOORE: Good morning. My name is Mike

23 Moore and I am the Executive Director of the North

24 American Carbon Capture and Storage Association or

25 NACSA. NACSA is a non-profit organization composed of

1 companies engaged in technical, commercial, financial

2 and development aspects of CCS in the United States and

3 Canada.

4 I will deliver a summary of NACSA concerns

5 and suggestions. A written submission contains our full

6 testimony.

7 I applaud the EPA for proposing these

8 regulations. CCS holds significant promise to manage

9 carbon emissions and should be part of any climate

10 change regime. CCS is also essential to enhanced oil

11 and gas recovery which we believe can be combined with

12 permanent storage.

13 Our first area of concern relates to EPA's

14 proposed limitations on receiving formations. It

15 permits injections only beneath the lower most

16 formation containing a USDW. This limitation will

17 hamper deployment of CCS by excluding many sites

18 otherwise suitable for CCS. Such a blanket limitation

19 is unnecessary because operators will be required to

20 show that projects will not endanger drinking water

21 sources.

22 The second area of concern is the proposed

23 rule's treatment of CCS operations and monitoring. The

24 proposed rule would require CCS wells to meet or exceed

25 the operating standards of industrial and hazardous1 waste wells in many cases. NACSA believes that such

2 treatment is not justified by the attributes of carbon

3 dioxide. Also the director would have discretion

4 without any guidance to require tracers and/or gas

5 monitoring to detect movement of carbon dioxide that

6 could endanger a USDW. NACSA believes that these

7 methods should not be required because there are too

8 many questions about their efficacy and the potential

9 risk posed by tracers.

10 The third area of concern is the proposed

11 fifty year default post injection site care period.

12 While some minimum period may be appropriate, a fifty

13 year period is arbitrary and unwarranted by the

14 specific characteristics of carbon dioxide. We note

15 that the program director has discretion to extend or

16 shorten the period without guidance. NACSA proposes

17 that the rule adopt a period of performance based

18 standard based on project specific information gained

19 through the site characterization and monitoring phase.

20 Alternatively the Agency should shorten the default

21 period significantly to reflect the time required to

22 assess CCS project work.

23 The fourth area of concern relates to the

24 proposed rule's financial assurance requirements. The

25 proposed rules place greater financial assurance1 requirements on Class VI wells than currently apply to

2 Class I hazardous waste wells. NACSA believes that the

3 physical and chemical properties of carbon dioxide

4 injected for storage do not warrant such treatment and

5 could prevent the deployment of CCS.

6 The fifth area relates to the proposed rule's

7 grandfathering of existing wells. Under the proposed

8 rule, if a Class II or V well operator wishes to

9 transition to Class VI well, the operator would be

10 required to meet new Class VI requirements. This

11 discourages early deployment of CCS because operators

12 will face potentially significant new obligations. The

13 rules should broadly permit grandfathering unless the

14 director determines that a particular site is not

15 suitable for storage based on specific criteria. The

16 rule also unnecessarily creates a dichotomy between

17 Class II wells and Class VI wells. Class II is only

18 available as long as any production is occurring. This

19 may prevent EOR wells from being transitioned to

20 permanent storage after EOR ceases or ends. EPA's

21 rules should grant carbon dioxide storage the same

22 legal status under all well classes.

23 The sixth area of concern relates to primacy

24 or to state primacy for proposed Class VI wells. EPA

25 can accelerate the deployment of CCS while allowing1 states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells without

2 obtaining primacy for the entire UIC program. Numerous

3 states have established their own CCS regulations and

4 their expertise should be relied upon.

5 Our final area of concern relates to the

6 Agency's comments in the preamble that injected carbon

7 dioxide could be deemed a hazardous waste under RCRA

8 and CERCLA. NACSA believes it is appropriate for

9 geologically stored carbon dioxide to be categorically

10 excluded from the definitions of hazardous waste.

11 NACSA urges the Agency to reconsider its positions and

12 the deleterious effect it could have on the development

13 of CCS.

14 Thank you.MR. NUMMEDAL: I am submitting a copy of

20 my comments.

21 MR. NUMMEDAL: Okay. It is a pleasure being

22 here this afternoon. My name is Dag Nummedal. I am

23 Director of the Colorado Energy Resource Institute and

24 also the institutional coordinator of something called

25 the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory.94

1 When I was asked to come here this afternoon

2 by my friends here in the audience when we knew that

3 you were having this hearing, probably the most useful

4 thing that I think I can do is to talk very briefly

5 about where we are in the basic science issues

6 surrounding geological storage. As I suspect you will

7 have other witnesses here today talking about many of

8 the other implications of CO2. And but the timing is

9 actually very good for dealing with the basic science

10 because last night we submitted a very large proposal

11 to the Big Sky Partnership or the DOE in response to

12 their solicitation for their new projects of energy

13 frontier research centers. One category of project

14 will deal with subsurface storage of CO2. So rather

15 than reading through everything that I have in front

16 here, I just want to kind of emphasize where we believe

17 the biggest challenges, biggest unknowns lie in this or

18 knowledge or community of knowledge, scientific

19 knowledge.

20 What happens when you put CO2 into the

21 subsurface. One is that when you are pumping the large

22 quantities of CO2 that we will be looking at, there are

23 formations that will be deformed. They are deformed

24 both by hydrological, by thermal and by chemical

25 disturbances from injected CO2. In turn, this for95

1 those who are reading, I am reading the second

2 paragraph, in turn this deformation probably will have

3 a profound effect both on the hydro mechanical and the

4 transport response of the injected fluid itself. And of

5 course, fractures are particularly important in the

6 subsurface because they are already are in the conduit,

7 but they are in the pipeline that work, that carry

8 fluids through the rocks. So for that reason we do not

9 have focus a lot of research and very little has been

10 done on this yet, to really get an understanding of the

11 distribution properties and response of both the

12 natural and induced fractures. How do they respond to

13 fluid pressure? To the temperature changes? To the

14 mineralogical changes? We can both dissolve minerals

15 in the fluid in the subsurface and you can

16 re-precipitate others. This will change the

17 injectivity of CO2.

18 Also many fractures create new fresh

19 surfaces and guess what? When you create a new fresh

20 surface, that surface is typically chemically very

21 reactive, much more so than an old rock surface that

22 has been weathered on the surface so understanding --

23 what is called the reactive transport modeling in the

24 technical lingo, is basically understanding how the

25 chemistry over fluid moving past this reactive96

1 surfaces. They change the mineral assemblage and in

2 turn start growing crystals or dissolving crystals and

3 changing activity.

4 To this, of course, then in the long run they

5 change the mobility of fluids at least the mobility of

6 CO2 and where it is trapped and how much we are

7 trapping in the subsurface. We are going about this

8 with a combination of flow modeling laboratory work and

9 we are starting the project building on what we believe

10 are the two most advanced numerical modeling codes in

11 the world today developed by a partner in this, and our

12 partners are the Livermore National Lab in Livermore,

13 California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the

14 Berkeley campus. These labs have over the last five to

15 ten years developed some codes called NUFT and

16 Tough-react numerical codes worry about those things.

17 That really have advanced our ability as scientists to

18 model ahead of time what will happen to minerals and

19 precipitation and dissolution when this CO2 charge

20 fluids go through the rocks.

21 Then the model predictions and the American

22 Model Predictions will then be tested against lab

23 experiments. One of the things that we are very proud

24 of at the Colorado School of Mines is how dedicated the

25 university is to laboratory work. There is only so97

1 much you can do in the area of modeling. You have to

2 test the models in laboratory before you can feel

3 comfortable using the models afterwards to predict what

4 would happen in the subsurface.

5 The last part then gets at the biosphere. A

6 lot of people think I believe that the subsurface

7 beneath our feet consists mostly of rocks only. It does

8 not. Turns out that we have a very extensive community

9 of microorganisms that go deep down. In the deepest

10 gold mines in South Africa, people are recovering

11 microbes. And these microbes play a fundamental roles

12 in the geochemical and radiological reactions. In fact

13 in all different rocks, whether they be hard rocks

14 where we get gold and silver and copper and whatnot,

15 there are organisms related and are present in both

16 deep hard rock mines, those organisms that are found on

17 limestones. We can look at that as potentially large

18 carbon sequestration. Reservoirs contain a lot of

19 bacteria, microbes in coal. Coal seams potentially are

20 great places to store CO2 partly because some of the

21 microbes will actually use the hydrogen as in the

22 electron donor and then reduce the CO2 into methane.

23 And we add hydrogen to the C and the O's and it

24 produces methane and oxygen and water. And then if you

25 can get that reaction to work in commercial and98

1 industrial settings in the subsurface, then you can

2 actually use CO2 in the subsurface, in the coal seams,

3 the same way that we are increasingly using CO2 in

4 algal farms. Algal biofuels which most people are

5 strongly in favor of. Environmentally

6 algal biofuels are probably very good and what you do

7 of course, algae have to eat something, they eat CO2.

8 Now if you can get the microbes in this subsurface, in

9 the coal seams, to do the same thing basically

10 converting that CO2 into methane and regenerate the

11 methane, you can have a sustained production of methane

12 which can be trapped and captured and used as it leaves

13 a much cleaner fuel than coal and oils for a long time

14 while you are storing CO2 in the process. I think it

15 is a very encouraging future technology.

16 And that will then also be a significant part

17 of the research that we are attracted, that we are here

18 proposing.

19 The last comments somebody gave me the

20 handout for today's meeting and I am sorry I did not

21 get to read it because I worked on that proposal late

22 last night and I spoke across the street there this

23 morning.

24 But according to your point number seven

25 in the handout for today's meeting, where you talk99

1 about EPA has an upstanding history of working with

2 academic community and the national labs to answer

3 basic science questions and I am delighted to see that

4 and I know that in fact. I have been dealing with EPA

5 for a long time too and I am very pleased that in fact,

6 the labs that you are mentioning are mostly the same

7 ones that we believe are the leadership precision in

8 this research. You do mention the Lawrence lab. You

9 mention the Pacific Northwest labs you are working

10 through, but not formally in this particular proposal

11 and you have mentioned little more, but of course

12 [indecipherable] strength in the carbon sequestration

13 [indecipherable].

14 Then you mention the regional carbon

15 sequestration partnerships in Colorado is member of the

16 southwest partnership headed up by Brian McPherson.

17 Started out in New Mexico [indecipherable]. Brian is

18 now at the University of Utah and close friend of all

19 of ours. So I have a very close interaction with that

20 partnership and also the Big Sky partnership in

21 Montana, in the Great Plains. Now where our research

22 already is different and will continue to differ from

23 the partnership is that we are not trying to focus on

24 kind of a regional assessment on what particular

25 methodology works where which is very much part of the100

1 partnership and of course, we need that. But instead

2 we want to sit back and look at a much more fundamental

3 geomechanical, geomicrobiological and geochemical

4 reactions in the subsurface in any kind of rock and we

5 will limit [indecipherable] submitted if it gets

6 funded. Get samples and data from these three

7 partnerships that I mentioned, so that the research

8 will be tied to the specific environments in the Rocky

9 Mountains very likely to store CO2.

10 So I think that is -- oh I mentioned the

11 Sleipner project which of course is well known. Because

12 Sleipner I attached some CO2 emissions back in 1995 and

13 1996. I have mailed it and advantageous for

14 [indecipherable] business perspective start

15 sequestering CO2 and I learned a great deal in the

16 process about it, so becoming a leader provider on the

17 carbon sequestration expertise and technology. The and

18 I have been working with Stockholm for a long time as

19 you can tell from my accent, I did not grow up in

20 Louisiana, some people think.

21 And so I am working very closely with the

22 Norwegian company and other friends back in Norway

23 including being a board member on their carbon

24 sequestration company called Gas and Nova so again as

25 part of the research we are about to undertake, we make101

1 sure that all the learnings that are coming out

2 [indecipherable] also are fully available to all the

3 members of our research community.

4 So with that, thanks for your time. And of

5 course, I can copy that and answer any questions that

6 you might have.MR. PERIDAS: Good morning everybody and

5 thanks for the opportunity to comment. My name is

6 George Peridas. I am with the Natural Resource Defense

7 Council and I would like to thank EPA for holding this

8 hearing, also for the proposal of this rule.

9 We have been researching carbon sequestration

10 for the better part of ten years and now as you can

11 imagine as an environmental group, it was not be the

12 most intuitive approach in dealing with greenhouse gas

13 emissions.

14 So I'd like to start with a note and say that

15 this is not an attempt to legitimize or to further

16 perpetuate the use of coal. We believe that there are

17 much better, cheaper, and cleaner ways to meet our

18 energy needs. Nonetheless, there is a very good reason

19 why we do need to have CCS in the mitigation portfolio

20 as well and this is because of the world's vast coal

21 resources, the projected business as usual use of this

22 resource and the pace at which we see climate change

23 evolving. We believe that coal, mainly in China is and

24 climatic changes are on a collision course and we

25 really need to do something about it.76

1 We believe that the problem of economics and

2 problem with policy can put CCS in context and give it

3 the role that it needs. Nonetheless, we do not believe

4 that we can do away with this if we are going to meet

5 emission reduction targets in time, so this is what we

6 think is an absolutely necessary part of the mitigation

7 portfolio. We would like to see things happen

8 otherwise; I think technically it is feasible. The way

9 that some of the developing economies are growing these

10 days and the way the political situation in the U.S. is

11 heading, means that we wanted to use CCS as well.

12 Having spent a good few years studying this

13 and we took great care in being diligent, as an

14 environmental group the idea of injecting large volumes

15 of CO2 underground that is not the most appealing at

16 first. Nonetheless, the more we studied this, the more

17 convinced we become that if regulated and performed

18 well, it can be very safe and effective. And I stress

19 the words, can be.

20 I do not agree with the assertion that CCS is

21 unproven, untried or untested. I think there was a

22 good body of experience in related context that gives

23 us reason to believe that CCS is safe and effective.

24 EOR as one of those examples, I do not claim that EOR

25 is tantamount to CCS. There are key differences.77

1 Nonetheless, there are fields that inject very large

2 volumes of CO2 annually and in the U.S. and elsewhere.

3 Some of these injections are well above the amount of

4 CO2 that would be injected annually by a large

5 qualified power plant.

6 We do not have the monitoring provisions in

7 place that we would have with a standard sequestration

8 project. Nonetheless, there are studies that are

9 almost completed that show, and these are going to be

10 published I think within the next few weeks or few

11 months by the University of Texas, that show that there

12 is indeed no real contamination issue at some of the

13 major UI projects and fields. Even though the

14 objective is not to keep the CO2 down for hundreds of

15 millions of years or thousands of years, nonetheless we

16 have injected very large volumes of CO2 and the

17 regulatory experience in Class II has shown that we

18 have not come across any major contamination issues.

19 The other I think major and striking example

20 of CCS which is often overlooked is nature itself. CO2,

21 methane and even H2S, hydrogen sulfide are occurring

22 naturally in the subsurface. The fields that the

23 industry has actually mined contained fairly pure CO2.

24 These large volume fields, they have been there and

25 they are testament that CO2 can be stored by nature in78

1 the subsurface for a very, very long time and very

2 effectively.

3 Oil fields and gas fields and also the deep

4 saline formations also show nature's ability to retain

5 those fluids, so I would urge a close study and

6 consideration of what nature has done already. Just

7 putting a label on a new technique and calling it

8 sequestration does not necessarily mean that it has not

9 been done before.

10 I believe the time is right to be writing a

11 sound regulatory framework on CCS. We need to be

12 getting on with reducing emissions from qualified power

13 plants and other industrial facilities as soon as we

14 can and I would like to thank and commend EPA for

15 putting together what is I think a very well thought

16 out rule in a very limited amount of time.

17 As I pointed out, we do have a

18 number of technical comments, which of course, if you

19 take them you will make the rule perfect, so we urge

20 you to do that.

21 We do believe that some revisions are

22 necessary and I would go briefly through some technical

23 points, but the final word on the timing here, there is

24 a trade off in my mind between how the rule is written

25 and the need for language to be revised in the future.79

1 I think some are claiming that the large scale

2 injections, some of which might be performed by DOE,

3 will be the catalyst or the trigger for major revisions

4 to the rule. I do not think that is necessary. I

5 mean, it really does depend on how the rule is phrased

6 and to what extent it is flexible and performance based

7 and I think if I weigh in that direction.

8 And secondly, I do have to doubt the

9 capability of these DOE funded projects to provide the

10 ultimate or deciding vote if you like on how to

11 regulate and how to craft the regulatory language. I

12 think there is, there will be some lessons that will be

13 learned from those. There will be new data available.

14 There will be some research that will take place, but

15 ultimately I think that this program is too little, too

16 late and I also do not think that it is a prerequisite

17 for drafting good rules. There might be some need for

18 revision, but the best way to get that experience and

19 to that knowledge is to move ahead with a handful or

20 two of large scale injections and that will be the best

21 possible learning experience.

22 Now on the technical issues, the ones I would

23 like to mention briefly without going into detail; I

24 will defer to the comments about, is the definition of

25 the area of review. The definition and treatment of a80

1 fault in the subsurface, I think I will echo some

2 previous comments on whether to inject above or below

3 the lowest USDW. The definition of a USDW might

4 change. The TDS level in the future and that is

5 crucial to policy decisions, but we will have to think

6 very carefully of, but I think there are good examples

7 of safe CO2 injection that are above the lowest USDW. I

8 am willing to make sure that the emphasis is on having

9 the adequate confinement systems and confining layers

10 that protect USDW's whether they are above or below.

11 The closure standards I agree with Scott, I

12 do not think that fifty years is arbitrary. I do not

13 think that it is the magic number or that it will be

14 appropriate for every single site. Nonetheless, I

15 think it is a good benchmark, but we do need to have

16 other flexibility to revise this upwards or downwards

17 as project data comes in.

18 I think what needs a little bit of refinement

19 is the phrase at the discretion of the administrator. I

20 think that should be some more concrete criteria as to

21 when the administrator should reserve the rights to

22 require certain techniques to be used on other

23 requirements in the rule.

24 I do believe that discretion in some media

25 is, if you like, good to go. And likewise, I do not81

1 believe that sequestration of the media is ready and in

2 that range, in that category, I would include basalts,

3 coal seems, organic shales and limestone. I think this

4 should still continue any injections and those should

5 continue to be regulated under Class V and I do not

6 think we are ready to move to a wide scale endorsement

7 of CO2 injection as a sequestration technique in those.

8 And the final technical point which might be

9 somewhat outside the jurisdiction of the EPA, refer to

10 this rulemaking is distinction between enhanced oil

11 recovery and sequestration. This rule deals

12 exclusively with deep saline formations and we believe

13 that business as usual enhanced oil recovery should

14 continue to be regulated as it always has under Class

15 II. Nonetheless, if there are any changes, any

16 significant changes in the over-riding conditions in

17 oil fields where they inject CO2 which might well be

18 the case if people see an economic incentive, to

19 sequester larger amounts of CO2 in those oil fields.

20 Then I believe that then, we will need to take a closer

21 look at how these wells should be regulated and whether

22 there is a need to regulate them under Class VI or to

23 grandfather them with other appointments into Class VI

24 and again the criteria, it should be whether we incur

25 any significant changes in the risk profile of those82

1 injection as a result of trying to get more CO2 in

2 there.

3 I think this concludes my technical points.

4 I think there are many good elements in this rule. The

5 proposal of the new injection class itself is a very

6 good one. The requirements for extensive monitoring is

7 another example. This architectural design nature of

8 having to continue to update the proposed plans,

9 operational parameters, closure plans, etcetera as

10 modeling data comes in and that is monitoring comes in.

11 I think it is a very sound one which should be

12 maintained and I do also agree with the performance

13 based closure standard rather than the mere passage of

14 a number of years which could be ten, it could be

15 fifty. I really do think that we need to look at what

16 happens in each project rather than saying if you have

17 been through a number of years, then it is fine.

18 I would like to mention since there is talk

19 of contamination of groundwater that we need to be

20 careful to distinguish risks from hazards. A hazard is

21 something that can potentially go wrong. A risk

22 involves the probability of it. What we really need to

23 do is take a good look at which of these hazards are

24 linked to what probabilities and to what extent they

25 amount in. I do believe that in the case of83

1 sequestration, we can effectively manage a lot of those

2 risks.

3 Climate change will not wait and I think it

4 will have a profound effect on drinking water results

5 itself and I really do believe that USDWG will suffer

6 if we do nothing about climate change. And I think

7 sequestration as I said can be effective.

8 I would like to end with a note on scale and

9 timing. I do not believe that we are ready to proceed

10 with wide scale deployment of sequestration all around

11 the country. It is something we saw a hundred permit

12 application as soon as rules promulgated and I do think

13 this is premature. We are not ready to move in that

14 direction. Nonetheless I think by the nature of the

15 beast and the current economics of CCS, we will not see

16 that happen. What we are talking about here is an

17 initial wave and an initial set of projects that would

18 be permitted and then studied intensely. And I think

19 those will inform how we think about sequestration,

20 whether we indeed need or do not need any revisions to

21 the regulations and also how we manage projects. I

22 think ultimately if CCS is to deliver on its promise to

23 reduce greenhouse gasses, then yes we will need to

24 deploy this at a wide scale. But this is not something

25 that will happen over five years. Some we will scale84

1 up to overnight. There will be ample time, study and

2 reassessments.

3 And I would like to close with one final

4 comment. Even if we do write the perfect rule text via

5 its effective implementation really does rest on

6 capacity building and funding, not just the federal

7 agency level, but at the state agency level. I think

8 now is the time to be thinking about it and to put

9 requirements in place and sufficient funding in place,

10 for states and for federal and regional offices to gear

11 up and be up to date with these rules and capable of

12 administering them effectively.

13 Thank you very much for the opportunity to

14 comment.22 MR. PIKE: Morning. My name is Paul Pike and

23 I am a Strategic Analyst at the Ameren Corporation,

24 electric and gas utility headquartered in St. Louis,

25 Missouri.65

1 I am here today on behalf of the Utility

2 Solid Waste Activities Group or USWAG. USWAG is an

3 association of approximately eight electric utilities

4 and trade associations throughout the country. I am a

5 chair of USWAG's carbon capture and storage task force.

6 USWAG will be submitting formal comments on the UIC

7 proposal in November, but I would like to take the

8 opportunity to highlight a few of the important issues

9 as we are seeing it relative to this rulemaking.

10 Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important

11 undertaking it will have significant, very practical

12 and cost implications for the entire power industry.

13 While the challenges and uncertainties associated with

14 the development of large scale commercial deployment of

15 carbon capture and storage are significant, the utility

16 industry certainly would be at the forefront of these

17 controls. Given the direct impact this program will

18 have on the electric industry, we appreciate EPA's goal

19 of establishing certainty and transparency to the

20 requirements of Class VI carbon dioxide injection. It

21 is also crucial however for the regulations to reflect

22 the challenges inherent in crafting controls for

23 commercial CO2 injection and storage activities when

24 such large scale commercial operations are in the

25 planning stage.66

1 The fundamental challenge confronting EPA in

2 this rulemaking is to establish a cost effective and

3 environmentally sound regulatory program to cover a

4 range of operations for which the technology will not

5 be commercially deployed for a number of years. To

6 meet this challenge and to establish a workable

7 regulatory framework over the coming decades for the

8 long term storage of carbon dioxide, EPA must craft

9 regulations with flexibility so that it may be fine

10 tuned as industry and regulations alike gain experience

11 with large scale carbon dioxide sequestration.

12 Because information related to carbon

13 sequestration is sure to develop, Ameren urges EPA to

14 avoid blanket probations or arbitrary absolutes in the

15 final rule. We agree that the standard underlying

16 protective rule requirements for carbon dioxide

17 sequestration is the protection of underground sources

18 of drinking water. However, because it is difficult to

19 know at this point what future technologies will be

20 developed for injection and long term storage of carbon

21 dioxide in the manner that is protective of these

22 drinking water sources. But because there is, there

23 should be a significant demand for the capacity to

24 store this CO2, EPA should not prematurely preclude

25 injection in certain specific types of sites or through67

1 certain methods. The final rule should leave the door

2 open for a range of injection options, sites and

3 methods, some of which are unrecognized or even

4 unknowable at this point in time provided that the

5 ultimate objective of protecting the underground

6 sources of drinking water is achieved.

7 Of particular importance is also potential

8 for liability under CERCLA including the natural

9 resources damages cases stemming from injection and

10 sequestration of carbon dioxide. As EPA can surely

11 appreciate the potential for these opening liabilities

12 will act as a serious deterrent for would-be owners and

13 operators of these injection wells. Simply put, EPA

14 must mitigate the threat of potential CERCLA liability

15 to the extent possible in the rulemaking.

16 One step that the Agency can take with

17 respect to CERCLA is to ensure that the Class VI

18 permits have the broadest possible reach or meaning

19 protective of drinking waters. To maximize this

20 protection offered by the federally permitted release

21 exemption, this would mean including the scope of the

22 permit for carbon dioxide injection, all other CERCLA

23 hazardous constituents likely to be contained in the

24 CO2 stream including those generated along with the

25 carbon capture and transport and in the injection zone.68

1 Similarly the scope of the authorized permit

2 zone should be as broad as possible while remaining

3 protective of drinking water.

4 With respect to RCRA, it is

5 premature to conclude that captured injected carbon

6 dioxide is discarded and therefore possibly a solid

7 waste under RCRA. Carbon dioxide is a commodity used

8 in a variety of processes currently and we do not know

9 exactly what methods or mechanisms will be created as a

10 result to deal with CO2. EPA should create an

11 applicable exemption from RCRA under the well

12 established contingent management concept given that

13 the UIC will ensure that they injected material is not

14 mismanaged. Such an exclusion will be legally

15 justified, consistent with past promulgation of

16 excluded rules and it would make sound policy since by

17 removing a potentially significant regulatory barrier

18 to the commercial development of carbon dioxide

19 sequestration operations.

20 The bottom line is that the potential for

21 interaction with CERCLA or liability in RCRA must be

22 mitigated to avoid significant delays in an overall

23 chilling effect on this process.

24 USWAG recognizes that while there are some

25 measures Agency can take in the regulatory context to69

1 address these concerns, those measures may be limited.

2 In the end USWAG also believes that the Agency should

3 consider whether legislative solutions will be

4 necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take

5 such action. Because state regulators have worked

6 extensively with permitting the existing injection

7 wells, we believe that we should work with those

8 agencies to continue and to have implementation of the

9 Class VI rules by the states would be crucial to the

10 UIC program.

11 Because of wildly varied characteristics and

12 limitations of sites and projects, it is important to

13 incorporate performance based standards into the final

14 rule waiting for site specific approach to requirements

15 for site review, reevaluation and post injection site

16 care and closure.

17 With respect to EPA's suggestion that future

18 guidance documents be issued to clarify financial

19 responsibility, we stress that such guidance must be

20 issued in keeping with OMB's good guidance practices

21 bulletin. In addition, it is essential that the self

22 insurance instruments remain available to owners and

23 operators as a method of financial assurance for Class

24 VI carbon projects.

25 A final rule must not make Class VI permit70

1 application process overly burdensome or unrealistic by

2 requiring detailed information that may not be

3 available at the time of the initial application.

4 Instead the final rule should allow for submission of

5 updated information regarding Class VI well and its

6 area of review as that information becomes available.

7 On behalf of USWAG, thank you again for the

8 opportunity to participate in the process and present

9 some of our views.MR. PLUNK: Good morning. My name is Olan

17 Plunk. I am Vice President of Environmental Services

18 for Excel Energy. I also serve as Vice Chairman of the

19 Edison Electric Institute's carbon capture and storage

20 work group; a group of member companies who are

21 committed to exploring carbon capture and storage or

22 CCS as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

23 First a little about Excel Energy, we are the

24 fifth largest combination natural gas and electricity

25 company in the nation. We have regulated operations in33

1 eight western and mid-western states. We provide

2 services to over three million electric companies for

3 customers and almost two million natural gas customers.

4 Our generating units are capable of producing over

5 fifteen thousand megawatts of electricity from a

6 diverse portfolio of fuel sources including coal,

7 natural gas, oil, nuclear, renewables and hydropower.

8 We are committed to developing cleaner sources of

9 electric in generation. The company is the nation's

10 number one wind energy provider and also ranks fifth in

11 the terms of solar power.

12 Our most recent energy supply plan approved

13 by the Colorado Public Utility Commission just last

14 month would extend our leadership in wind and add

15 almost ten times more solar generation in Colorado

16 before the middle of the next decade.

17 In addition, over the last three years we

18 have embarked on an ambitious effort to investigate the

19 feasibility of developing a coal fueled integrated

20 gasification combined cycle or IGCC plant here in

21 Colorado that would include carbon capture at the

22 outset.

23 We recognize how important coal is as an

24 energy resource to our state, region and nation and

25 therefore how important it is to develop much cleaner34

1 ways to generate electricity from coal.

2 I am here this morning to speak in support of

3 the important work EPA is undertaking to establish

4 regulations governing the underground sequestration of

5 carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share

6 with you a few of the lessons we have learned as we

7 have studied the feasibility of developing an IGCC

8 project with carbon capture.

9 First we have learned that carbon

10 sequestration is currently one of the most important

11 means by which power companies can reduce carbon

12 dioxide emissions while still producing reliable and

13 affordable energy from coal.

14 International studies as well as studies here

15 in this country attest to the importance of geologic

16 sequestration of carbon dioxide in any strategy to

17 reducing increasing carbon concentrations in the

18 atmosphere.

19 Second, working with respected geo-technical

20 and reservoir consultants to DOE sequestration

21 partnerships and a world renowned national lab, we

22 learned that geologic storage of CO2 is not only

23 feasible, but actually happening successfully in a

24 number of places around the world. We also discovered

25 there are viable and even favorable sites to sequester35

1 large quantities of CO2 right here in Colorado.

2 Finally and most relevant to today's

3 discussion we learned that permanent storage of CO2 can

4 be done safely and without harm to the environment as

5 long as we apply the right knowledge base, detailed

6 site specific information, technical expertise and

7 sound management practices. This is where EPA's

8 proposed regulations for geologic storage of CO2 come

9 into the picture. Because as we went forward with our

10 investigations over the last years, we also came to

11 understand something that caused us as much concern in

12 terms of our IGCC project. We came to understand that

13 government regulation and oversight of underground

14 sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty.

15 Nobody knew exactly who had authority over what and

16 what requirements might apply to a clean coal power

17 plant project that included geologic sequestration. We

18 realized that this regulatory uncertainty in time

19 created major uncertainties for our project with regard

20 to getting necessary environmental and other approvals

21 in a timely fashion. With regard to obtaining

22 insurance and financial assurances needed to manage

23 project risk and liability and with regard to

24 establishing confidence and community acceptance of the

25 project.36

1 In short we came to understand the regulatory

2 situation created an environment of uncertainty in

3 which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a

4 billion dollars could not responsibly proceed. This is

5 why I am here this morning to speak in favor of what

6 EPA is doing to address a critical element in our

7 national response to climate change and why I think the

8 real world experience Excel Energy has gained in

9 Colorado would be of value in this rulemaking process.

10 The company will join other electric utilities in

11 submitting detailed written comments we hope will lay

12 groundwork for a program that will be protective, but

13 practical and provide the certainty needed to make

14 carbon sequestration a viable near term climate

15 mitigation option for the industry.

16 In the meantime, I would like to offer some

17 general observations. Having been through this effort

18 to locate and prove up the acceptability of a CO2

19 sequestration site for a large commercial scale

20 project, Excel believes the topics EPA would require

21 permit applicant to address in its proposed rules are

22 appropriate and important. For example, we believe the

23 best technical expertise should be brought to bear in

24 the first studying and then submitting documentation

25 concerning site and formation geology, hydro-geology,37

1 faults, fractures, injectivity, existing wells and so

2 on.

3 We believe there must be suitable CO2

4 injection plans backed by seismic surveys, multi

5 dimensional modeling simulations and formation testing.

6 We recognize the overriding importance of well design

7 and construction that assures well integrity. We

8 believe there must be a sound operations management

9 program including appropriate monitoring and corrective

10 actions that are prepared and implemented by experts in

11 the field.

12 We recognize both the local and national

13 interest in providing effective post injection site

14 care and closure and demonstrating adequate financial

15 responsibility for these activities. While agreeing

16 with supporting all of these important program

17 elements, I would like to add a few words of caution.

18 If we as a nation want CO2

19 sequestration to become a viable and near term option

20 for dealing with carbon emissions, we cannot make

21 obtaining approval for sequestration projects so

22 difficult, time consuming or expensive that it

23 recreates the very barrier that the lack of clear

24 regulatory requirements presented in the first place.

25 We cannot implement an effective regulatory program for38

1 sequestering CO2 if the rules are based on the

2 erroneous premise that CO2 represents an extreme

3 hazard. It is important in these rules that we send

4 the right message to the public about the nature of the

5 CO2 gas we are dealing with.

6 It is likewise critical in these new rules

7 that we strike the right balance between addressing

8 realistic risks associated with storing CO2 versus

9 creating a regime that effectively hinders rather than

10 facilitates a key climate mitigation strategy.

11 We know that more and larger sequestration

12 demonstration projects should be funded and undertaken.

13 We agree that careful monitoring of well integrity,

14 plume migration and the like is necessary. On the

15 other hand, we already have decades of experience in

16 the underground injection of CO2 and other much more

17 hazardous materials. Tens of millions of dollars have

18 been spent doing measurements and monitoring studies at

19 large sequestration projects like Weyburn and Sleipner

20 and DOE is in the process of spending many millions

21 more on projects sponsored by the various regional

22 sequestration partnerships.

23 Other countries are doing their own

24 sequestration demonstrations and related research. The

25 real goal is to strike a reasonable balance between how39

1 much is required and would have to be spent in the way

2 of well and ground water monitoring, plume tracking and

3 all the rest versus the level of risk presented by a

4 given project. Considering what we have already

5 learned about the characteristics of CO2 geologic

6 storage and the effecticy of various monitoring and

7 management practices.

8 I want to close by reiterating Excel Energy's

9 strong support for the expeditious adoption of

10 affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon

11 sequestration and give our company, our industry and

12 our nation a powerful tool in reducing CO2 emissions.

13 And thank you for the opportunity to comment.MR. SYED: Good morning everybody. My name is

13 Talib Syed. I am a Consulting Controlling Engineer and

14 been supporting mostly UIC related work for the past

15 twenty-five, thirty years. Also my recent work, I have

16 been involved in the north slope of Alaska.

17 I just want to give a few minor, just

18 highlight maybe two or three points that in my opinion

19 are important. The first thing is I think we have to

20 pay a little bit of attention to just transposing the

21 area of review concept that they used to with the UIC

22 program to the CO2 geologic sequestration program. And

23 the reason is, it is not in my opinion, the same

24 concept that we had when we were disposing of water,

25 etcetera. So we have got buoyancy affects to regard to88

1 take into consideration and that may be a bigger impact

2 on what the zone of endangering influence is. And I

3 believe that has not been taken into consideration at

4 all and just transposing the zone of endangering

5 influence as we are used to with the water etcetera in

6 the UIC program, without incorporating buoyancy

7 affects, that is an issue that needs to be very

8 carefully taken into consideration.

9 That leads me to mechanical integrity. The

10 integrity, the mechanical integrity is going to be a

11 critical component. I believe right around the well

12 hole in the casing and the type of cements that you use

13 and the potential for flow on the backside due to back

14 flow etcetera becomes critical. So I am not ruling out,

15 you know, transitioning or using EOR type wells for

16 geosequestration, but you have got to be careful on

17 looking at those wells and just not saying, okay, I

18 have got these wells, they are for EOR purposes and I

19 am just going to straight away transition them for

20 geosequestration. If you've got a custom designed

21 well, that is the way I would go, but I would not rule

22 out using Class II EOR wells, but pay a lot of close

23 attention to it.

24 The requirement that you cement a continuous

25 column of cement for the long string casing again,89

1 could be a potential problem. For instance, if you got

2 mud in the bore hole, say you know, a ten pounds per

3 gallon mud and you are displacing cement of fourteen

4 pounds per gallon, then you may unintentionally

5 fracture some deep formations behind the well hole and

6 what you have done is you have damaged the integrity of

7 the well hole and your primary objective in every

8 instance is to make sure that the integrity of the well

9 is the most critical component.

10 Many times what happens is that we are

11 looking at it from an environmental perspective, we

12 will look at all environmental considerations, but

13 safety, safety becomes you know, a critical component

14 that would trump environmental considerations. That

15 does not mean that environmental considerations have to

16 be set aside. Look at that too, but safety will always

17 trump environmental considerations, so if you've got

18 unintended fracturing of the formations of big

19 formations, what have you done? In effect, you have

20 lowered the integrity which was your primary objective

21 to begin with because you want to make sure that you

22 have got the integrity of the well hole. So you know,

23 so in some cases yeah go ahead and do it, but do not

24 mandate it in that okay in every instance, you have to

25 have a continuous column of cement. So that ties in90

1 with the integrity because always keep in mind, what is

2 -- how can I maintain the integrity of my well hole

3 throughout the life of the project? Because in EOR

4 applications you know, you are talking about maybe ten

5 million, fifty million, hundred million cubic feet per

6 day of injection, but here you are talking about an

7 exponential manifold increase for geosequestration

8 purposes. You are talking about gigatons etcetera.

9 The next point I would like to make is we

10 have not considered horizontal wells. In the rules

11 that were, the proposed rules I have not seen anything

12 on, as far as horizontal wells. Are horizontal wells

13 going to be used for completion of geosequestration

14 wells and how does that play into the matrix?

15 Another item that I would like to bring to

16 you know, to be considered is the depth of the lower

17 most USDW. Yes in an ideal world, you want to have

18 your injection zone below your lower most USDW, but

19 what happens if you have USDW say at 20,000 feet?

20 Nobody is using that USDW for practical purposes. You

21 are not going to go and drill a water well 20,000 feet

22 deep in order to supply a community, but at the same

23 time it meets the criteria of less than 10,000 TDS. So

24 there should be some flexibility on a case by case

25 basis. Either if it is economically not feasible or it91

1 is technologically not feasible just as we have an

2 aquifer exemption process or you know, for the Class II

3 program. But I do prefer as a starting point that you

4 use a zone that is you know, deeper than your lower

5 most USDW, but not in every instance as mandatory

6 requirement.

7 One other concern that I have is of you know,

8 again the safety of underground water sources. So the

9 design of the well and the operation because when, when

10 you are dealing with CO2, it is very important that you

11 be aware of the phase behavior of CO2. We are all

12 aware that CO2 could be in a liquid phase, in a

13 supercritical gaseous phase, it could be a

14 supercritical gas or a solid, etcetera and that is why

15 the critical temperature, critical pressure comes in.

16 So a requirement that you always operate at a certain

17 depth where you are above the critical temperature, you

18 are above the critical pressure becomes important

19 because otherwise you are going to have unintended

20 consequences. Particularly what you have got to watch

21 out for is a catastrophic release. Small releases,

22 okay you can manage it, but if you have got a

23 catastrophic release, then everything you know, comes

24 to naught.

25 So that is about it. I think you are headed92

1 in the right direction, but we've got to be careful on,

2 you know, we are going to learn as we go along. We

3 have got a lot of experience that EOR, 70% of the

4 current CO2 injections are the Permian Basin in west

5 Texas. Okay. We started CO2 flooding in west Texas in

6 you know, in the `50's so we have got a lot of

7 information on how to design the wells, what the

8 problems are, but for geosequestration where you are

9 just, you know, storing it in deep seated aquifers, you

10 have got to be careful with the wells. You have got to

11 be careful about you know, the reaction of the

12 tubulars, the reaction on the cement. Again for EOR,

13 if you got a cement like, let us say a problematic

14 cement, that is not going to be effective in preventing

15 flow. It has to be modified and there are now new

16 cements that are coming in for specifically designed

17 for CO2 purposes. So these types of cements may be

18 effective again, but again we have got to watch out for

19 each case and not just a sealed okay if it is there

20 because KBR and Halliburton and all the other service

21 companies are coming up with new cement specifically

22 designed for making sure that in every instance you

23 have got that area covered. Okay?

24 Thank you very much.Letter ID: 0520

Commenter: Scott Anderson Organization: Environmental Defense Fund

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21416 Letter Lines: 18 to 20

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson with the Environmental

Defense Fund and I think I would like to begin by co mplimenting the EPA for having done generally an excellent job with this pr oposed rule making.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21417 Letter Lines: 22 to 25

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: We think that an adequate regulatory regime for CO2 sequestration is within sight. That is not to say that we do not think that changes are needed. We do see the need for quite a few changes in the rule, but I think it is fair to characterize the changes we ha ve in mind as technical.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framew ork for regulating injec tion of CO2 for GS.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21418 Letter Lines: 27 to 42

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

Comment: I would also like to start out by addressing couple of issues that are perhaps technically outside the scope of this ru lemaking. 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

1it is essential that this program be funde d adequately both at the federal, but

also at the state level. In round numbe rs, state UIC agencies currently get

about ten million dollars from the fede ral 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 pr ograms 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.

Individual 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 acquiri ng 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 th at 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 ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21419 Letter Lines: 44 to 47

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues

Comment Code: 4300 2.4.4 Injection Depth

Comment: And then secondly, I would like to agree w ith American Waterworks Association about the point that changing technical abilities for cleaning up water as well as increasing water demand does make it im portant that we not consider ten thousand parts per million to be set in stone.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that there is increa sing demand for water resources and that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA believes these potential resources should be considered when inje ction depth waivers are sought. Therefore, the final GS rule at §146.95(b) requir es the Director to consider these issues in determining whether an injection depth waiver is appropriate. Sp ecifically, the Director must consider whether alternative inje ction sites are availa ble; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and nonUSDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resources or treating USDW formation

waters in the event of contamination rela ted to the Class VI injection activity.

EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. The GS rule focuse s on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required

2under the SDWA, by establishing regul ations to ensure the safe in jection of CO2 for long-term

storage.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21420 Letter Lines: 52 to 61

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to delineate the AoR (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring

Comment: We think the rule, the proposed rule ha s done a very good job of keeping the focus on both CO2 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from displaced brine. The confining zone in the rule is required to contain both CO2 and displaced formation fluids. The zone of elev ated pressure as de fined in the rule

focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids th at might be driven out of a US -- into a USDW. The modeling re quirements are modeling both of the CO2 plume extent

and formation fluid movement. There is th e requirement for periodic monitoring of groundwater quality and ge ochemical changes above th e confining zone which would help detail whether either CO2 or brine is leaking and there are adequate response provisions.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s suppor t and believes th at predicting the complex multiphase, buoyant flow of the CO 2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be mobilized due to injection requires the sophistica tion of computational models, as required at §146.84(c)(1). Models can predict CO2 fate and tr ansport, as well as changes in formation pressure, in three dimensions, as a function of ti me in order to delineate the subsurface storage site and the AoR. Models can account for site-specific and predicted operating conditions as well as geologic heterogeneities a nd potential migration through fau lts, fractures, and artificial penetrations.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a clim ate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulat ing injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique i ssues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoya ncy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. For addi tional information on well construction, siting, and testing and monitoring requirements, pleas e also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21423 Letter Lines: 63 to 66

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

USDW

3Comment: A couple comments on some issues that we still have under review, but I can at least go this far at this time. We wo uld urge the EPA to give serious consideration to the po ints that many have made about not restricting this rule

to sites that are below the lowest USDW. A nd we would also urge the EPA to give

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI in jection depth requirement s for injection into nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conj unction with the permit appl ication submission) to demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-US DW that is above or between USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying information that owners or operators must subm it, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors; 2) procedur es for public notice of a waiver application a nd for DirectorRegional Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone.

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 w ill ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC Program Dir ectors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to concerns a bout local and regional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) allo ws for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injecti on depth variability thr ough a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficien t quantities to supply dr inking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21424 Letter Lines: 66 to 68

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment)

Comment: to sites that are below the lowest USDW. A nd we would also urge the EPA to give serious consideration to modifying the re quirement for cementing the long string casing from top to bottom. We will finish making up our mind about those issues

Individual Response: EPA believes that the requirement fo r long-string casing of Class VI wells at §146.86(b) will offer the best protection against fl uid movement behind the casing, between formations, and above the injection zone and will ensure competency of Class VI wells

4and protect USDWs from endangerment. The b uoyant nature of CO2 dictates deep well construction procedures that ad dress movement of fluid behind the casing and provide necessary barriers to CO2 leakage outside of the injection zone. EPA believes that the requirement provides, at a reasonable cost, corrosion protection of the casing; prevents undesirable migration of fluids behind the casing; provides support to the casing; and provides multiple barriers against endangerment of USDWs.

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/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA stresses that protection of USDWs is the primary mission and mandate of the UIC program and the purpose of all requirements for inject ion wells. Any injection activity must be demonstrated to not endanger USDWs, regardle ss of their depth, and if such non-endangerment cannot be shown, then the activity will not be allowed under UIC requirements or the SDWA.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21426 Letter Lines: 72 to 83

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

Comment: I would also like to agree in part and strongly disagree in part with my good

friends from API and the National Associ ation of Carbon Capture and Storage folks on this closure standard. The disagr eement is this; we think that to call the fifty year default period arbitrary is just not accurate. If it said fifty years period without any ability to flex either direction, perh aps that would be arbitrary. Now that said, that does not m ean that we support the proposed rule standard for approving site cl osure. In fact, the opposite . We think it needs to be substantially reworked and we do not even think you necessarily need a default period in order to have a solid performance standard for this. I am not going to go into exactly what we would subs titute instead, but I can say that it will be generally consistent and perhaps precisely the same as comments that are being developed by the Ground Wa ter Protection Council.

Individual Response: EPA based the GS post-injection site car e and site closure requirements at §146.93 on existing experience with injection activities, available data from GS pilot projects,

and research studies. EPA believes that all ava ilable data indicates that the injection well plugging and site closure provisi ons provide appropriate safegua rds for protection of USDWs from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there are unknowns associat ed with early GS project deployment and the long term storage of CO2 for GS. For these reasons, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS injection. 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 determ ine if modifications to the requirements are

5appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21427 Letter Lines: 85 to 93

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types

Comment: Other suggestion and improvements for the rule are that coal seams, the basalts,

hollowed out salt domes and shale ar e simply not ready for commercial sequestration at this time. And that is true whether or not they are below the

lowest USDW. So our recommendation is th at the Class VI pr oposal clearly be written not to apply to these sorts of formations. We do favor continued experimentation in these form ations and some of them, es pecially coal seams may become commercially viable in the future , but for now we think they should be written, should be permitted under Class V. We should await further knowledge before deciding precisely that those formations not to be regulated.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS, particularly regarding GS into coal seams, ba salts, salt domes, shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. EPA anticipates that in the short-term, GS into these types of formations will continue to be experimental in nature (i.e., if th ey are to test GS technologies and collect data), and will li kely be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells and be subject to UIC Program Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, incl uding those in such formati ons, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of informati on and documentation are required and being collected. 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 modificatio ns to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21428 Letter Lines: 95 to 98

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

Comment: We like the fact that the rules place a lot of importance on monitoring. In several instances, the rules proposed usi ng monitoring to modify the various aspects of the operations, but we think th e rules can go further in this respect and we will spell that out in our final comments.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the im portance of monitoring at GS sites and emphasizes that monitoring of injection activ ities will be an important component of every GS project. Monitoring associated with injecti on wells and the movement of the CO2 plume is

6necessary to verify that the injectate is confin ed in the target formations and does not endanger

USDWs.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21429 Letter Lines: 100 to 108

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment: The rule I believe, I believe the preamb le does mention the possibility of interference among projects, but whether or not that is the case, we think it is important that the rule contain a provision to head off potential interference among projects. The idea that seems to make sense to us is to flatly say that a project cannot interfere with the effectiveness of a preexisting project and anytime there is an overlap in the pressu re fronts or footprin t or however else you might define it, we think there ought to be inquiry made as to whether that

would constitute interference. A rule lik e that would force projects in a single basin or brine formation to space themse lves at least somewhat properly.

Individual Response: EPA anticipates that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically connected formations will be acco unted for in the initial AoR calculation. EPA adds that the owner or operator must demonstr ate, 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 in cludes consideration of existing conditions such as the presence of multiple operators. EPA adds that if any ne w GS projects are permitted within the AoR of a GS project between AoR evaluations, the AoR re evaluation must addre ss such projects. EPA also expects that the permitting of the newer GS pr oject will have considered the presence of an existing GS project.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21430 Letter Lines: 110 to 114

Comment Code: 3300 2.2.1 Delineating the AoR/M odeling CO2 movement

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation fre quency (seeking comment)

Comment: We think the AOR's area of reviews need to be calculated as intended and updated as necessary. We think ten year updates is far too infrequent and we think that there are some technical problems with th e way the AOR is defined in the rule.

We believe the EPA's intention is to use el evated pressure as the main guide to AOR delineation, but in our judgment the definition just doe s not say that.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be sufficient to appropriately model plume and pre ssure front movement, establish conditions for corrective action, and ensure pr otection of USDWs from endange rment. For these reasons, the Agency changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation at 146.84(e) from 10 years to at least every 5 years in the fi nal GS rule. EPA believes that th is revised frequency addresses

commenters' concerns about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the

7emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique

nature of CO2 GS.

EPA agrees that the AoR definition should accoun t for the impact of th e CO2 plume on USDWs. The Agency has carefully considered all co mments on the AoR defi nition at 146.84(a) and modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic sequestration project where USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of review is delineated using computational modeling that accounts for the physi cal and chemical propert ies of all phases of the injected CO2 stream and is based on av ailable site characte rization, monitoring, and operational data.

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21431 Letter Lines: 115 to 131

Comment Code: 1620 1.3.2 Induced seismicity

Comment Code: 4110 2.4.1.1 Injection pressure limitations

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: Injection pressure limits. This is very important and we think EPA's about halfway toward addressing this properly. Th e half that seems to be well done is that the proposed rule requi res quite a bit of geomechanical information to be

submitted. The kind of information that could be used, should be used to

determine whether or not there is a risk of induced seismicity and to determine whether or not there is risks of reopening otherwise closed fau lts and fractures making them, making what starts out as a non-transmissive fault into a transmissive fault. So the proposed rule calls for the informa tion that enables

that kind of stuff to be calculated, but it fails to require that information to be used as part of the permitting proce ss to inform the injection pressure limits. Instead the rule uses the traditional sort of injection pressure limit from oil and gas regulation that says accepted as a percentage of fracture pressure. The problem with that is that these other problems I mentioned, induced seismicity and reopening of faults can occur in lower pressures than say 90% of fracture pressure, it is possible for one to comply with the 90% of fracture pressure requirement and yet still cause these other geomechanics related problems.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that all information about the site, includi ng seismic history

and data on rock mechanics, will be us ed to inform pressure limitations.

In response to the concern about induced seismici ty and reopening of faults at lower pressures than 90 percent of fracture pressu re, EPA believes that the require ment for the owner or operator to submit data on known or suspected faults and fractures and information on the seismic history of the site, including the presence and depth of seismic sources and a determination that the seismicity would not interf ere with containment per §146.82(a)(3)(v), will inform the determination of an appropriate pressure limitatio n in the permit. This investigation would also

89 identify any sites with the potential for reopening or reactivation of faults or unacceptable

seismic risk that could otherwis e interfere with containment.

The Director will also review geologic, hydrogeologic, and geomechanical information submitted by the owner or operator in setting pe rmit conditions. If, based on this information, a lower pressure limitation is appropriate, the Director has the authority to set a lower limit in the operating permit. EPA clarifies that fracturing of the confining zone dur ing injection and/or stimulation is also prohibited at §146.88(a).Letter ID: 0521 Commenter: Ginny Brannon Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments

Letter ID: 0521 Comment ID: 21445 Letter Lines: 27 to 31

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of premier coal technologies. As a coal producing state in Colorado, we are especially interested in technologies that will secure the industry's future in the face of the challenges a ssociated with reducing gr eenhouse gas emissions and thereby mitigating the impacts from global warming.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside th e scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner th at protects USDWs from endangerment. For

additional information on EPA’s fi nal regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0521 Comment ID: 21446 Letter Lines: 33 to 39

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

Comment: And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reflected in the

Colorado Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize th at clean air coal technologies can help us reach this goal and may be a ke y component in reaching that goal, but emerging solution such as geologic sequest ration must be te chnologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient regulatory framework. With respect to that regulato ry framework, the Safe Drinking Water

Individual Response: While EPA agrees that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA st resses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conduc ted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

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 (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

1of 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: 0521 Comment ID: 21449 Letter Lines: 39 to 67

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: framework. With respect to that regulato ry framework, the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the states that apply to EP A for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the underground injection c ontrol program. These states referred to as primacy states must meet the mini mum federal requirements for UIC programs including construction, operating, mon itoring, 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 classe s 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 cla ss 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 in jection are similar in purpose and particularly suited as sta nd alone classes of wells.

Also in addition to our own staff, Colora do 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 cont ext. Colorado agrees with EPA. By allowing states to acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the responsibility of implementati on and provide for more comprehensive approach to managing carbon capture and sequestration projects.

Individual 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 th e final GS rule. Given the potential for CCS

23 (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address clim ate change, EPA believes that provi ding states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well cla sses 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 integrat ion of GS activities

under SDWA into a broader framework for mana ging 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 authorit ies that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comp rehensive CCS management approach.

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

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in vari ous technical areas releva nt to GS of CO2 is critically important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EP A acknowledges that such expertise may be present among staff in state UI C 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.Letter ID: 0522

Commenter: Dave Bufalo

Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21467 Letter Lines: 23 to 33

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

Comment: With respect to the injection of CO2 and its affect on water quality, I am most concerned about a potential catastrophic failure of th e environment system.

There is a lake in Africa that somehow or another evolved a tremendous amount of

carbon dioxide in one massive instantane ous release and it killed all the villagers within some radius of that. So the issue is, do we have fault systems that may allow this to happen and what then is the proximity of the local population base? That is my primary concern.

If we have a gradual leak of CO2 from a containment system, I do not see that as catastrophic. It was once in the atmosphe re, it has under gone sequestration and

now it comes back out. So be it.

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.

This evaluation must also identify the presence of faults. Suitable GS sites must have confining

zones that are free of transmissive faults or fr actures and are of suffic ient areal extent and integrity to contain the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation fluids. The formations must allow injection at proposed maximum pressures and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the confining zone(s ), as required at§146.83(a)(2).

1Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21468 Letter Lines: 35 to 68

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

Comment: I recognize that the Supreme Court of th e United States has given the EPA the regulatory authority to regul ate CO2. Over the past eighteen months, I have come to the conclusion that managed producti on of CO2 is not th e cause of global climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Al abama has written a book called Climate

Confusion. In this book he states that ma n's production of CO2 is equivalent to one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 mol ecules of the atmosphere over a five year period. So when we hear these number s of millions and millions of tons of CO2 being released in the atmosphere, we mu st put that in context of what part of that is generated by man. Dr. Spencer thinks that this is not a significant contribution to global warming.

I have also read numerous articles, five different books, consulted with several PhD. Climatologists, in particular, Dr. William Gray from Colorado State University who is known for his annual forecast of hurricane activity. All of

the literature that I have read further indicate that man's pr oduction of CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

The issue of CO2 causing climate change is not a closed issue as some would have you believe.

I would refer you to a project called the Petition Project written by the Oregon

Institute of Science and Medicine wher e over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to the President of the United Stat es of America saying to take drastic action with respect to eliminating mass production of CO2 will not do anything to minimize climate change.

So, I respect the EPA for its efforts and attempts to do something to comply with the mandate by the U.S. Supreme Cour t and to also respond to the apparent public concern of climate change by ma n. However, as we go forward the development of these regulations, both th e regulation of drinking water quality and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge the EPA to l ook closely at the

cost benefit ratios of what this is going to cost.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that climate change mitigation is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the Cl ass VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to

reduce CO2 emissions.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements apply to owners or operators of injection wells

2used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. The Class VI GS rulemaking is promulgated under Safe Drinking Water Act authority and does not relate to any endangerment and cause or contribute findings under the Clean Air Act. Th e Class VI GS requirements do not depend upon, and are unaffected by, Clean Air Act endangermen t and cause or contribute findings. More information on EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act can be found at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.

Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21469 Letter Lines: 67 to 74

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule

Comment: and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge the EPA to l ook closely at the

cost benefit ratios of what this is going to cost.

I am now a certified old guy, 66 years old. I have got gray ha ir, I wear trifocals and my income is fixed. Any type of environmental regulation without proven benefits to the benef it of mankind is going to co st all of us consumers money and that money could be better spen t doing something else other than pure regulation. Thank you.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the GS rule requir ements are necessary and appropriate to address the unique challenges posed by large- scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corro sivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility w ithin subsurface geologic formations. EPA acknowledges that the Class VI requirements ha ve associated costs beyond baseline (Class I industrial wells) costs, and belie ves these costs are necessary a nd appropriate to address the unique challenges posed by large-scale GS incl uding large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

3Letter ID: 0523

Commenter: Steve Crookshank Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21353 Letter Lines: 27 to 32

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: First I would like to provide some contex t for our comments. Oil, natural gas and coal provide approximately 85% of the world's energy. The power plants,

vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that use these fuels produce more than twenty five billion tons of CO2 emis sions annually. While no single technology is sufficient to mitigate human CO2 emi ssions, capturing CO2 and storing it in deep underground formations coul d play an important role.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21354 Letter Lines: 34 to 50

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells

Comment: As an industry, we have over thirty-five years experience safely transporting and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil rec overy. While constantly evolving, the technology, upgrading practices and regulatory requirements have been developed for enhanced oil recovery are extensive, mature and generally appropriate for

CCS.

In U.S. alone, the oil and gas industry ope rates over thirteen thousand CO2 EOR wells, over thirty five hundred miles of high pressure CO2 pipelines and has injected over six hundred million tons of CO2 for EOR alone all while maintaining an excellent health environment and safety record.

Industry also has extensive experience in large scale separation and reinjection of natural gas streams. The la rgest operation of th is kind is on the north slope of Alaska where forty-seve n trillion cubic feet of natural gas consisting of about twelve percent carbon dioxide has been cumulatively reinjected over the past thirty plus y ears. The CO2 fraction corresponds to approximately four hundred and twen ty million metric tons of CO2.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that site s used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule was conducted at

1ER sites. EPA also recognizes th at a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21355 Letter Lines: 52 to 58

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of the existi ng regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule and of the use of performan ce based approaches. Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requi rements and the proposed ground water monitoring requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further impr ovement. The first of these is the

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and belie ves that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) unde r the existing UIC Program is necessa ry to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injecti on of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues as sociated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic

formations.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21356 Letter Lines: 58 to 70

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

USDW

Comment: should be reconsidered for further impr ovement. The first of these is the proposal to restrict inject ion into formations below the lower most underground source of drinking water or USDW. This requirement is not necessary for protection of USDW's and would remove a va st number of viable formations from consideration. Industry has shown they can operate CO2 injection wells and EOR context without endangering US DW's that are located belo w the injection zone. An excellent example is the Saw Creek EOR project in Wyoming which has a USDW directly below the injection zone.

Moreover, under the proposed rule, there are other measures that provide real assurance of formation integrity and requi re operators to demonstrate that the project will not endanger USDW's maki ng the lower most USDW restriction

unnecessary.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection

2above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injecti on into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements spec ifying information that owners or operators must submit, and

Directors must consider, in consultation with PW SS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for Director-Regiona l Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additiona l requirements that apply to owne rs or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the in jection depth requirements to en sure USDW protection above and below the injection zone.

While the Agency acknowledges the experience gained by the oil and gas industry and other injection activities, EPA identified unique cha llenges posed by large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations that warrant the tailored approach in the GS rule. Furthermore, the Agency believes that wells that inject into non-USDW formations above and be tween USDWs presents additional challenges that warrant a dditional requirements.

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

Comment.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21357 Letter Lines: 72 to 79

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

Comment: EPA should also reconsider a proposed fifty year default period proposed injection site care. EPA offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected period of fifty years. Establishing a fi xed and unusually long time period may create a significant barrier for opera tors considering entry into CCS operations. Criteria for determining the pe riod post injection site care should be performance based and a function of th e site specific characteristics of the project such as project size, geologic factors and the relative risks of the project.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the decision to use a default 50 year period for PISC was arbitrarily made. In determining the post-in jection site care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, exis ting environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pe rtinent results from GS modeling studies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further expl anation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computational Modeling of Unde rground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underg round Sources of Drinking Water." Based on

review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA believe s that a 50 year post3injection site care timeframe represents a re asonable and protective monitoring period and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe. Furthermore, EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe, as required at §146.93(b)(1), is not overly burdens ome, does not exaggerate the risks associated with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs from endangerment.

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

the duration of the PISC timefra me by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-in jection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b) ; or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

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

comments.

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21358 Letter Lines: 81 to 84

Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93)

Comment: Clear guidelines also need to be establis hed regarding when operators have met the performance standards that determ ine site closure. Specifically, the standard that the project no longer poses an endangerment to USDW's needs to be defined using reasonable risk based crit eria. EPA should also reconsider its

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the guidance will a ssist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site car e and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring

4wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21359 Letter Lines: 84 to 87

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

Comment: defined using reasonable risk based crit eria. EPA should also reconsider its proposed well construction and operating requirements which are much more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary and do not reflect industries thirtyfive plus years of success in injecti ng CO2 under the Class II UIC program.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the Class VI requirements are overly stringent; instead, the GS requirements are tailored to the unique nature of GS, including the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy and potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and impurities in the CO2 stream. EPA believes these tailored requi rements are more appropriate than Class I or Class II requirements. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment for further

details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that the Class VI requirement s balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based st andards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, tes ting and monitoring the s ite, performing corrective action, and post-injection site car e. EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and pe riodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Dire ctor that will encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21360 Letter Lines: 88 to 93

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment)

Comment: Class II EOR wells constructed for these projects and their operating practices

have an excellent record of mechani cal integrity and pr otecting USDW's.

Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing the long string casing to surface are not only unnecessarily burdenso me, but might also interfere with operations and could intr oduce unintended risks.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the cem enting requirements at §146.86 would prevent monitoring, operation and remediation of Class VI wells. Cementing of deep wells has been performed successfully in the past by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Class I

5municipal waste disposal wells. Some of these wells, which must meet the same cementing and casing requirements as Class VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep and have been successfully cemented in a manner that maintains integrity an d allows for all required well testing, operation, and remediation (EPA, 2001). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additi onal 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/g roundwater/uic/wells _sequestration.cfm

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of e xperience injecting CO2 and has demonstrated the effectiveness of existing cementing materials and procedures. EPA also believes that GS is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations to warrant the tailored construction requirements for Class VI wells at §146.86. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater th an for Class II wells. Reservoir pressure conditions wi ll be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Class II ER projects. Therefore, Class VI GS reservoir pressures will increase during the injection phase of the GS project.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21361 Letter Lines: 95 to 99

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: Additionally while unnecessarily creating a regulatory gap between Class II wells and their operations and Class VI wells and their operations, EPA is creating potential economic and operational barrier to transi tioning from EOR operations to storage operations thereby further reducing the nu mber of target

formations where CO2 can be stored.

Individual Response: Comments related to potential econo mic and operational barriers to trainsitioning EOR operations to GS are outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure prot ection of USDWs from enda ngerment. However, the Agency believes that establishing a regulator y framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology may pr ovide the regulatory and jurisd ictional certainty needed to foster development and deployment of CCS while ensuring USDW protection.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21362 Letter Lines: 101 to 105

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

Comment: In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA to develop rule s that facilitate the safe, secure, long term storage of CO 2. API is concerned that if by being overly prescriptive in designing a new we ll class, the proposed rule will hinder the development of CCS and could have the unanticipated conseque nce of hindering the innovations that could improve both we ll security and performance. CCS is

6Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs fr om endangerment. Encouraging investment in CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21363 Letter Lines: 105 to 107

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: the innovations that could im prove both well security and performance. CCS is one of the essential technologies that coul d help to ensure that we can continue to produce clean energy society demands.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

7Letter ID: 0524 Commenter: Becky English Organization: Sierra Club

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21482 Letter Lines: 26 to 46

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: I wanted to make a few points this afte rnoon. First, I wanted to ask that the comment period be extended. These are very complicated issues for IGCC and for carbon capture and sequestrati on. I notice that EPA's six to nine months late in doing its due diligence on this topic a nd because of the complication of the process and the complication of the scienc e and of course, the public is even less able to comprehend these issues than EPA is so I am asking you today, to give us a six month extension for public comment on this. It does not seem fair to ask us to do the hustle to respond in thirty days.

I was wondering if this might have been part of a pattern that some of us have noticed at EPA for some hurry up processi ng before the Bush administration runs out. Some of us frankly do not quite tr ust Administrator Johnson's motives in

this and we think we need to have so me time to digest this process.

Congress has been in a con tinuing resolution mode producin g anyway and there is new information coming out as I know you are even more aware of than I am about some actual leaks of CO2 in process and these, of course, would need to be considered not only by EPA, but by the public and so I do not know if this is a discursive mode, but I want to ask you a question of process. Is my requesting this extension, does that mean it will happen or do we need to file a formal extension request?

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA did extend the comment period for the proposed rule by an additional 30 days . Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to

this comment and to Sierra Club's written comment 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.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21483 Letter Lines: 54 to 59

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment)

Comment: Secondly I wanted to point out that perm it applications should not be able, applicants rather, should not be able to use proprietary software if they are not willing to disclose their modeling da ta. And their operating assumptions and explain their research methods more fully for a transparent, for transparency with the public; people such as myself and Sierra Club. We need complete

1transparency in order to give adequate public input. That is just obvious.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the use of proprietary models should be disallowed. EPA will allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation, but clarifies that GS well opera tors using proprietary models ar e required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis.

In response to the comment that the proposal do es not sufficiently address transparency, EPA clarifies that GS well ope rators are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. EPA adds that its Confidential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. Information including model assumptions and eq uations are used by the Director to inform his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs.

EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns about the need to evaluate the inputs and assumptions used in these models, and will allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation. EPA clarifies, however, th at GS well operators using proprietary models are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. Information including m odel assumptions and equations are used by the

Director to inform his/her deci sion to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs. EPA a dds that its Confidential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models.

To ensure that all predictive models used for AoR calculations are meeting the Agency's expectations, EPA plans, every six years, to coll ect 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 modificatio ns to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21484 Letter Lines: 60 to 84

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

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

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

I also want to point out th at a remediation plan should have been developed by now to deal with all possible contamin ation 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 pl an needs to be in place along with this particular proposal. Please provide us with that remediation plan and give

2the public time to comment on that as well.

EPA's management of carbon capture a nd 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 provi ding such reporting fo r all incidents already and not just for ca rbon sequestration leaks, but for really I think all incidents across your entire realm of responsibility. Again, with the transparency, the public needs to know wh at 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 so me 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 re ducing the viability of our planet.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the final rule does not change the public notice requirements for injection well owners or ope rators already required under 40 CFR Part 124. However, because of the unique nature of GS proj ects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public in volvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the ear ly stages of each GS pr oject 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 a nd 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 owne r or operator will be responsible for any remediation associated with his or her well. The ru le also requires each owner or operator to maintain financial responsibility for emergency and remedial response. See §146.85(a). EPA is developing guida nce on both financial respons ibility and emergency and remedial response plans.

EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understand ing of GS projects and the asso ciated injection technologies involved. EPA does not require the use of any ne w information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and pe rmitting authorities to use the Internet as well

as both new and established tool s to explain and post informati on on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for he arings, 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 applica tions for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and pe rmitting authorities to use similar technologies

3to keep the public inform ed of GS projects.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21485 Letter Lines: 86 to 88

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

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.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the ov erall 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 th at the impact on any individual household (as a result of CO2 GS requirements) is e xpected to be very minor. Please see the cost analysis for the GS rule for additional information.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21487 Letter Lines: 117 to 119

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues

Comment: How about an EPA rule that goes like this . No use of any form of energy that does not yield more net energy across its process life cycle than it actually contains in its primary energy capture m ode. Short of that, I must call today

Individual Response: The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that Class VI GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. Prohibiting the use of certain forms of energy is outside the scope of th e Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21488 Letter Lines: 90 to 115

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues

Comment: Does it make any sense at all to be e xpending more energy than coal actually yields and more money than could ever be justified with comprehensive life cycle accounting to widely used coal as a fu el source in the first place or by extension to perform carbon capture and sequestration? Does it net out to administer this stuff with hearings like this knowing what we already know? To accept as taxpayers the well known liabilities to fish and wildlife habitats and human health? To do the appropriate a nd necessary greenhouse gas reduction

4accounting? To deal with in terstate boundary and commer ce issues? To mine and process the coal with all the environmenta l degradation and health costs that we

know are associated with that; to trans port it to its destinations and then spend the fuel and human resources and fuel again to send the trains back empty? To burn it, gasify it, liquify it, whatever and then spend more money and more energy trying to put CO2 back into the ground from whence it came in the first place, for heaven's sake? And then, and then importantly trying to guess, guess how effective that process might be since we are lacking longit udinal data and I am wondering do reliable methods even exis t to monitor that the sequestered CO2 is staying put? We are getting new inform ation that it is not staying put at

least in a few cases, but even this non- scientist here knows that gasses have a tendency to seek the surface. I can see th at when I drink my 7-up that I like every afternoon. The bubbles like to go up and as many others here can attest to better than I, CO2 leakage at the surface can cause serious public health and safety issues so. And then of course, not to mention that we have been undoing the energy intents given costly sequestrati on exercise that we just gone through and oh by the way, reintroducing CO2 again above ground as a greenhouse gas. So I am asking you, does this make any sense at all to even be in the business of doing these activities?

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that prohibiting the use of certain forms of energy, including coal and greenhouse ga s accounting are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

EPA recognizes that GS poses unique challenge s, such as buoyancy; for this reason, the requirements for GS wells are tailored to the un ique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologi c testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and period ic re-evaluations, de tailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and ex tended post-injection monitoring and site care.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21489 Letter Lines: 119 to 121

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention)

Comment: contains in its primary energy capture m ode. Short of that, I must call today for ending the current inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC and carbon capture sequestration. We need a mo re comprehensive law or regulation.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Ma nagement). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not limited

5to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate

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

the final GS rule.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framewor k for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tail ors the UIC requirements to addre ss the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the re lative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21490 Letter Lines: 123 to 125

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

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?

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a comment peri od 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 suppor ts the Directors' discreti on 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 incl ude the level of public interest in a GS project, specific permit details , or project-specific considerations.

6Letter ID: 0525

Commenter: Kevin Frederick Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21393 Letter Lines: 28 to 38

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

Comment: First of all, let me start with a fe w general comments on EPA's proposed approach. With respect to funding, EPA fundi ng to states to ad minister federal environmental programs such as the unde rground injection control program

continues to decline in terms of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country alone, subs tantial 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 cons ider establishing speci al provisions to set aside and identify funds specifically for the use by states and tribes that they will need in order to effectivel y develop and operate these types of permitting programs.

Individual 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 acquiri ng 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 th at 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 ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21394 Letter Lines: 40 to 45

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

Comment: Secondly, we believe that additional cl arification and guidance on financial assurance instruments and their appropriate use with respect to different phases of CO2 sequestration project s is needed in order to provide a guideline that states may actually begin to use with respect to evaluating the financial assurance requirements and the appropriate use of various types of financial

instruments.

Individual Response: In response to public comments, EPA has added more specific requirements to the rule. These include a list of permitted financial instruments, timeframes for

1adjusting cost estimates, requirements for protec tive coverage, steps to take in the event of

adverse financial conditions, and others. Howeve r, EPA believes flexibility in the financial responsibility requirements is also appropriate. Owners or operators may choose from a variety

of financial instruments to meet their financia l responsibility obligations , as listed in §146.85(a), provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to prevent endangerm ent of USDWs by demonstrating the ability to pay for each GS activity.

EPA clarifies that it will allow owners or opera tors to use separate and multiple financial responsibility instruments for different GS activ ities, and that owners or operators can be released from an instrument when the phase of the project for which the instrument was required is complete, as specified in §146.85(b)(1). Howe ver, owners or operators must demonstrate adequate financial responsibility with their permit applications for all activities for which financial responsibility is requi red at §146.82(a)(14). See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

EPA agrees that guidance is necessary. EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility for Class VI wells that will provide information about the appropriateness of various financial instruments. This guidance is available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21395 Letter Lines: 47 to 52

Comment Code: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tr ibal, and local A ssociations (e.g., GWPC, IOGCC)

Comment: Lastly, U.S. EPA should seriously review and consider the comments that will be provided in the future in this propo sed rule by the Ground Water Protection

Council. The Ground Water Protection Counc il has a working committee comprised of members from industry, st ate regulatory agencies, a nd environmental interest groups that are reviewing the proposed rule and we believe we will be providing important comments that EPA should consid er in reviewing the proposed rule.

Individual Response: EPA reviewed GWPC’s comments on the proposed rule; EPA’s response

can be found in the docket for this rule.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21396 Letter Lines: 54 to 58

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: A few specific comments on issues where we agree with EPA's proposed rule. We believe that permit applications for GS s ites should include several plans, not currently required under existing UIC re gulations. These plans include a

2monitoring, a testing plan and an area of review and corrective action plan and a post injection site care and site closure plan.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the GS requireme nts, which are based on the longstanding UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic si te characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechan ical integrity testing, monito ring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post- injection site care, a nd site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

For additional information on testing and mon itoring, corrective action, and post-injection site care requirements, please also see the discussi on of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA agrees that incorporating the plans into the permit rather than establishing specific requirements for corrective action, monitoring, in jection well plugging, and post-injection site care in the regulation provide the appropriate flexibility to address the variety of site-specific conditions that may be enc ountered at GS sites.

EPA also believes that it is appropriate to re quire owners and operators to submit all plans, including the injection well pluggin g and post-injection site care a nd site closure plans, at the time of permit application. EPA belie ves that the Director needs a satisfactory level of assurance that the owner or operator has pl anned for these events before injection commences and that the owner or operator has ensured that appropriate financial reso urces are available to fund all required activities, as required at §146.85. The final rule retains requirements for submitting these plans with the permit application at §146.82( a). EPA believes that the requirement for this and other plans associated with GS projec ts will promote an ongoing dialogue between the owner or operator and the Director to ensure USDWs are protected from endangerment. In addition, these plans will support a demonstratio n that owners and operators have adequate financial resources to meet well plugging and post-injection site ca re and site closure requirements. Please see the final rule and the discussion of the GS project plans in the preamble

for additional information.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21397 Letter Lines: 60 to 62

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

Comment: We agree that the directors should be provi ded discretion to shor ten or lengthen the proposed post injection site care monitoring period based on performance

information.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director shou ld have discretion to shorten or lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has reta ined this provision in the final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). EPA adds that the final rule at §146.93(c), also allows the Director to approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe where an owner or operator can

3demonstrate during the permitting process that an a lternative post-injection site care timeframe, other than the 50 year default, is appropr iate and ensures non-endangerment of USDWs.

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the be st position to determine whether additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be shortened) or whether an alternative PISC timeframe is appropr iate, based on the circumstances of a particular project. EPA expects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in consultation with all potentia lly impacted parties.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21398 Letter Lines: 64 to 67

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: There are areas that we agree with EPA th at discretion allowed to the director should be provided to determine or re quire grandfathering the construction requirements for existing Class I and Cla ss II wells and Class V wells seeking a permit for geologic sequ estration of CO2.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were en gineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the construction requirements are grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical integrity testing, etc.) must be met fo llowing a determination under §146.81(c).

EPA adds that conversion of the well must be at the Director's discretion following an evaluation of all other site-specific information about the well and the project, e.g., modeling, monitoring,

and other data.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21399 Letter Lines: 69 to 71

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

Comment: Discretion for identifying and charact erizing additional confining and containment zones of the primary confin ing zone that could further impede

vertical fluid movement and a llow for pressure dissipation.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that, in some situations, the presence of additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection from endangerment. The final regulation re tains the requirement

4at §146.83(b) which affords the Director discretion to require owners or op erators to identify and

characterize additional zones.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21400 Letter Lines: 73 to 75

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment)

Comment: Discretion to allow the use of proprietary models. Wyoming, in particular, has options available for applying for confiden tial treatment of pr oprietary models

and we believe that should be allowed at the discretion of the director as well.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that some of the availa ble proprietary models may meet the needs for calculating the AoRs of GS sites. EPA will allow their use in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation, but clarifies that GS well operators using proprietary models are required

to disclose, to the Director's sa tisfaction, the code assumptions, re levant equations, and scientific basis. EPA acknowledges that several proprietary models have been used by petroleum-reservoir engineering professionals as we ll as in peer-reviewed studies to model CO2 sequestration. EPA

adds that its Confidential Business Informati on requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. Information includin g model assumptions and equations are used by

the Director to inform his/her decision to issu e the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21401 Letter Lines: 77 to 77

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action

Comment: And finally discretion to allow for a phased approach to corrective action.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there are potential be nefits to phased corrective action, including distributing the burden and costs of corrective action over time and not delaying initiation of the GS project. EPA believes that the phased corrective action approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in th e final GS regulation. However, EPA recognizes that a phased approach to corrective action may not be appropriate in

all situations, and that the Director is in the best po sition to make decisions about the appropriateness of phased correc tive action based on his or her knowledge of the local geologic

and site conditions. For this reason, the GS rule affords the Director discretion in determining whether phased corrective action is a ppropriate at a given GS site.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21402 Letter Lines: 78 to 86

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

USDW

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

USDWs in certain circumstances

5Comment: There are a few areas which we do not agree with EPA's proposed approach. Especially prohibiting injection into formations if they are above the lower most USDW. We believe it is imperative th at the director be allowed discretion to allow injection above or between USDW 's in specific geologic settings where the depth of the USDW's preclude geologic sequestrati on, make GS technically challenging or significantly limits st orage capacity. Such approval by the director would allow injection between US DW's and thereby allo w injection above

the lower most USDW. In most circumstan ces it may be demonstrated that the

USDW's would not be in danger.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for inject ion into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. Additionally, the final GS rule doe s not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type

of formation.

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

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21403 Letter Lines: 88 to 102

Comment Code: 4460 2.4.4.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing aquifer exemptions in certain

circumstances

Comment: Furthermore, we support allowing directors to exempt aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in accordance with th e requirements of 40CFR 144.7. This essentially allows directors upon accepting pr imacy to exempt aquifers which he specifically identifies.

We support allowing directors to exempt aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in accordance with the requir ements of 40CFR 146.4. This allows exemption of aquifers if they contai n hydrocarbons, mineable minerals are

6contaminated or are located at a defi nite location that makes future use impractical.

We support allowing directors to provid e for CO2 injection into aquifers previously exempted for Class I and Cla ss II injection operations provided that the operator obtains a new aquifer ex emption for the purpose of geologic sequestration.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where aquifer exemptions for GS may be warranted. The final rule allows for the expansion of the areal extent of existing aquifer exemptions for Class II EOR/ EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS pursuant to requirements at §§146.4 and 144.7( d). Class VI owners or operators granted expansions of existing Class II EO R/EGR aquifer exemptions for GS projects must meet all of the tailored requirements for GS wells in the final GS rule.

However, the final rule precludes the issuance of new aquifer exemptions for Class VI GS wells; that is, aquifer exemptions will only be granted for projects that are transitioning from Class II

EOR/EGR wells to Class VI.

EPA clarifies that all decisions regarding whethe r expansion of existing aquifer exemptions will

be at the Director's discretion and based on site -specific information. If an owner or operator applies for a Class VI permit to inject CO2 into a previously exempted aquifer (non-USDW) that is located above and/or between USDWs, the perm it applicant must also apply for a waiver of the injection depth requirements pursuant to §146 .95 to ensure that if a waiver is granted, USDWs above and below the injection z one are protected from endangerment.

This approach is designed to ensure that th e differences between traditional Class II EOR/EGR operations and Class VI operati ons are considered during the aquifer exemption application process and the Class VI permitting process. Thes e differences include the anticipated large CO2 injection volumes associated with GS, the buoyant and mobile nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. The Agen cy believes that this process will encourage owners or operators and Directors to consider the use of alterna tive formations for GS, including non-USDW formations through the waiver process, prior to applying for or approving aquifer exemption expansions for Class II EOR/EGR we lls transitioning to Cl ass VI GS operations.

For additional information on aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Da ta Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21404 Letter Lines: 104 to 113

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth

Comment: Given the variety of sub-surface geologic conditions that exist both within and between states, we would not support setting a minimum injection depth

7requirement for CO2 geologic sequestrati on in lieu of requiring that such injection take place below the lower most USDW.

We do not support prohibiting the injection of CO2 for long term storage into certain formations where they are above th e lowermost USDW. As mentioned before, we believe there are likely circumstan ces where injection into formations including deep or mineable coal seams situ ated above the lower most USDW may be practical and protective of ove rlying and underlying USDW's.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not preclude injection into any nonUSDWs formations, including coal seams, provided the site-suitability requirements in the GS rule are met. EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into certain formation types. For this reas on, the Agency is using an adap tive approach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect and review project da ta on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to determ ine whether the appropria te amount and types of information and documentation are being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine wh ether 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 agrees that it is not appropr iate to set a minimum injection depth for GS projects and the Agency believes that a determination of site-su itability for GS (i.e., th at subsurface formations will receive and confine injected CO2) should be made on a site-specific basis. The GS rule, at §146.82, requires the owner or operator to prov ide extensive site- and project-specific

information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum site criteria at §146.83, that the CO2 will be contained within the injection formation, a nd that USDWs will be protected from endangerment.

EPA acknowledges that there are limited circum stances where injectio n above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protec ts USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establis hes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection de pth requirements for in jection into non-USDW

formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conjunc tion with the permit appl ication submission) to demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-US DW that is above or between USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. Th e requirements are designed to ensure that the owner or operator, the Director, and the Regional Administrator cons ider, on a site specific basis, the implications, benefits, and challenges associat ed with GS and ensuring water availability and USDW protection. For additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21405 Letter Lines: 115 to 118

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

8Comment: We do not support requiring a fixed time fr ame for post injecti on site care of fifty years. We recommend that a performance standard be applied to determine a period of post injection site care. That post injection site care continues until the plume is stabilized and cannot endanger USDW's.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that th ere will be circumstances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the 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 pos t-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b) ; or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

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

comments.

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21406 Letter Lines: 120 to 125

Comment Code: 5436 2.9.1.3 Allowing separate financial demonstrations for plugging and abandonment and post-injection si te care (seeking comment)

Comment: And finally, we do not support allowing, or excuse me, not allowing for the use of separate financial demonstrations to be submitted for the plugging of the injection well and for the post injection site care requirements. It may be advantageous to require the appr oval of the well plugging financial demonstration at permit issuance and the post injection site care financial

demonstration at a later time.

Individual Response: Owners or operators have the flexib ility to choose from a variety of

financial instruments to meet their financial re sponsibility obligations. Ow ners or operators may use one or multiple financial responsibility inst ruments for well plugging and PISC, as specified at §146.85(a)(6). However EPA will not allow for a separate financial responsibility

9demonstration for well plugging and PISC (i.e., a demonstration submitted prior to well plugging and the beginning of the post-injec tion site care period rather than with the permit application). A demonstration of financial responsibility for all ph ases of the GS project will be required prior to

the issuance of a Class VI permit, per §146.85(a)(5)(i).

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21407 Letter Lines: 127 to 131

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

Comment: In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the process of developing a CO2 sequestration regulation. We are looking ve ry closely at EPA's proposed rule as the model that we can use and apply in our state. We hope to have a draft of that regulation available before the e nd of the year and thank you for the opportunity to provide a pub lic comment here today.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and im portance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware that states are current ly in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, workgroups , technical guidance, and stra tegies for addressing CCS and

GS.

Throughout the regulatory devel opment process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states' regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Reque st for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring of states' regulatory effort s and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information about th ese state activities may be found in the docket

for the GS rule.

10Letter ID: 0526

Commenter: Jonah Fruchter Organization: Sierra Club

Letter ID: 0526 Comment ID: 21491 Letter Lines: 25 to 41

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: I would like to start my comments in talking about the general approach the EPA has taken to regulate sequestration. While it is great that we are talking about keeping water clean in Colorado, I do not understand why EPA is not taking a comprehensive approach to environmental regulation. We should be talking about how to regulate the capture, transfer, l eakage problems, public health issues and water safety all in one package. I do not think it is helpful to draft environmental regulation in a piecemeal fashion.

The environment does not function as separate pieces. It is interconnected. What

affects the water, affects the land and what affects the la nd affects our air

and so on and so forth.

Furthermore it is cumbersome and inefficient to form regulatory policy in separate parts. I would not suggest you use piecemeal regulation for anything, I mean, including the environment. Environm ental regulation shoul d always reflect a comprehensive approach rather than the singular and isolated approach we are taking with only regulating water safety.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS regulation is being promulgated under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The purpos e of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure that where GS technologies are deployed, GS is pe rformed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. CO2 capture and transport are outsi de the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating Class VI wells. EPA plans, every six years, to

collect and review data on Cla ss VI projects to determine whet her the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documenta tion are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropria te or necessary. The adaptive approach may

include solicitation of input and expertise from experts and stakeholders, similar to the consultations held to develop the current rule.

Letter ID: 0526 Comment ID: 21492 Letter Lines: 43 to 72

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

Comment: With that said, I would like to focus on transparency in regard to a future permit process. As I said earlier, I thi nk that the public comment in deciding

1environmental regulation is important a nd I am glad the EPA is hosting comment periods. However, this is complicated st uff. 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 rele ase this permit information as it is submitted so that just like the EPA, th e 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 so ftware 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 perman ent permits. I do not see a point in having a comment for one and not the othe r. The public should be allowed to comment on all potential moves to deve lop a carbon sequestra tion 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 backya rd. I hope you see many more comment periods in the future in regards to carbon sequestration technology and that we are allowed as th e public to comment on how sequestration develops in the future. Thank you.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment pe riod for draft permits, are appropriate for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is a ppropriate to impose longer time frames if they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authorit y under §124.10 to extend the public comment period if he or she determin es that such an extension is warranted. Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may incl ude 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 GS projects, EPA encourages early public involveme nt in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific informati on 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 a nd 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 heari ng in writing. Furthermore, the Di rector is required to hold a

23 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 unde r §124.19. In addition, the public would be able to particip ate in the public notice process in the event of modifications to the permit.Letter ID: 0527

Commenter: Leslie Glustrome

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21408 Letter Lines: 38 to 59

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: Secondly, what I would like to do is remi nd everyone that carbon dioxide is what you might call a rock of a molecule. Once you have carbon and oxidize it fully at four bonds oxygen, you have created the molecule that is the foundation of all life on this planet. It is, in a sens e, by nature's design, a molecule that does not go away. Climate scientists tell us that we will be dealing with the climate science, climate change and warmi ng of the planet for thousands of years after we stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is not something to play around with. This is not something to take lightly. This is not something to assume that somehow the guys in the suits have it figured out because we had a very clear demonstration that that is not the case very recently.

Carbon dioxide by nature is a gas. It is as the waterworks association person has reminded us, corrosive. It is an acid forming gas, tenth grade chemistry

reminds us of that. Carbon dioxide an d water forms carbonic acid. When you are creating large amounts of carbon dioxide, you will be getting la rge amounts of

carbonic acid and to state it very scientifically, when you make large amounts of carbonic acid, we can expect it to acidify the crap out of everything that it

comes into contact with. That means that you change the carb onate cycle and you start to liberate iron and manganese and ar senic and all, many other metals, so this is not something to somehow thi nk that -- this is just a high level injection experiment. We are talking about massive volumes of something that is very different than something that we have.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS, including the potential that CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials that could mobilize contaminants or compromi se pore space, and ther efore injectivity. 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. To ensure USDW protect ion and mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires the owner or operator of a Cla ss VI well to submit data about the site (during the site characterization process), including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the injection and confining zones, along with information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injecti on zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as specified in §146.82. This data will help identify potential geochemical reactions that may occur between the inject ed CO2 and the host geologic formation. Identification of potential reactions prior to inj ection would address concerns that formation of carbonic acid could dissolve potential limestone creating karst features.

1During injection operations, opera tors must extensivel y monitor ground water quality to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, operation, and post- injection site care periods, including contamination as specified in §146.94, and pr ovide financial respons ibility to address contamination as specified in §146.85.

In response to comments regarding the mobilizati on of constituents, EPA is funding research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (L BNL) on potential USDW impacts associated with mobilization of trace elements. In the August 31, 2009, NODA and Request for Comment (74 FR 44802), EPA published the results of the st udy, which evaluated the potential for GS to cause changes in ground water quality as a result of CO2 leakage and subsequent mobilization of

trace elements such as arsenic, barium, cad mium, mercury, lead, antimony, selenium, zinc, and uranium (Birkholzer et al., 2008a). In the study, LB NL estimated the amount of trace elements from native mineral species that could potentially be mobilized by the intrusion of CO2 and the potential ground water concentratio ns that could result, to dete rmine the potential for drinking water standards to be exceeded. Results from this model simulation suggest that if CO2 were to leak into a shallow aquifer, the potential for m obilization of lead and arsenic could be enhanced, causing increases in the concen tration of these trace elements in ground water. The Agency

continues to monitor research related to CO 2 confinement, potential for CO2 leakage, and

mobilization of trace elements. EPA adds that th e GS rule focuses on protection of USDWs from endangerment; impacts on the carbon cycle are outside of the scope of the UIC rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21409 Letter Lines: 61 to 65

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: EOR is not CCS. You put the CO2 under, you have no idea whether it stays under. Enhanced oil recovery is not CCS. Put th e CO2 under, you have no idea whether it stays under the ground or not. There has b een essentially no monitoring there

and all we have to do is talk to th e experts and they'll tell you that; no do

not assume that EOR is CCS. It is a very different thing.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the nature and risk s of CO2 injection for long term storage is different from Class II CO2 injection for EOR, and that tailored requirements for GS wells are appropriate and necessa ry to protect USDWs from endangerment. For this reason, the Agency tailored UIC requirements for Class VI wells that address the general risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and specifically addr ess the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., very large volumes, very long time-periods, and rese rvoir pressure conditions ). Owners and operators of Class VI wells are subject to the operational, MIT, monito ring, reporting, plugging, and postinjection site care and site closur e requirements in the final GS ru le. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements.

2Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21410 Letter Lines: 67 to 107

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: Lastly, another thing I would like to remi nd EPA and all of the participants is that Tom Friedman and his recent focus poi nt book has pointed out that Americans are learning that we can no longer be "a s dumb as we want to be" and that nothing will happen. We have seen what has happened on Wall Street. We have seen what happened in Iraq that was unjus tified. Right now, we are flying on the assumption that we have two hundred year s to rely on coal energy in this country. Anybody who says that has not read the U.S.G.S (United States Geological rvey) reports on coal availabil ity. That should be, in my mind, part of the preamble to this so that we, as a country, can come to face the fact that we actually only have a very small percenta ge of that "200 years." A most recent study tells us about 6%. Six percent of 200 is about 12 years depends upon how we look at the Powder River field up in Wyoming. So the reality is very

different than what we have been told in the media. As Americans we like to think this is not unusual actually. We have been told lots of things that were not exactly true, so it is time to sit up, pay attention and demand answers, not

demonstrate what we want them to be.

Next I would like to point out that life does not follow models. You can do anything on a computer. You can make a ssumptions about anything and when you look at the models that have been used, Mike Celia models or whoever you want to use, they make assumptions that basically determine the outcom e. In the real world, it does not work that way. As a simple, but I think a very important example, I am trained as a biochemist, I worked at the University of Colorado for eight years, I have worked at lots of other places, but that is one of the things I have done. During that eight year s working with people who were highly trained scientists, as I try to remember it, we had at least six incidents where someone left the water running and the drai n plugged one way or another. That meant that a highly expensive lab flooded and the water comes leaking through to the lab underneath destroying and many times very expensive, extremely expensive scientific equipment. In eight years, my memory is six of those occurrences. Now we happen to have been in sort of pent house lab which meant we were on the top floor, so you might think we might have been immune from such a thing, but in a separate set of incidences , all of the HVAC equipment is up on that ceiling and

I remember at least three times when th e guys who were in, maybe women, but the guys who were fixing the HVAC equipment did something so our lab flooded and we lost very expensive, both results and scientific equipment so stuff happens. Life does not happen the way models te ll you it is going to happen. We have better ways to do this. We aren't just talking about boiling water when we are burning coal. We can boil water too by using concentrating, so lar power. We can ship the electrons instead of shipping the coal over in nineteen century

3railroad system. We do not have as much coal as we have been told anyway, so all

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. The purpos e 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 . EPA clarifies that setting the scale of GS deployment and addressing the availability of co al are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21411 Letter Lines: 107 to 125

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: railroad system. We do not have as much coal as we have been told anyway, so all of these are very important as we think about this question of what to do and whether we should really be somehow th inking that the only way to address climate change is to burn coal and some how try to smash a gas back into the planet and hope it does not come back out. It is completely absurd assumption in part because we do not have that much coal anyway.

So, putting all that into context as we think about these rules, the sequestration space in our country and around the planet, but for now our country is going to be a very valuable commodity, so a fundamental concept behind these rules should be that sequ estration space shoul d only be used, because we can be pretty sure it is goi ng to fail. We do not know it is probably not going to fail, it may or may not fail in our lifetimes because we have got a bunch of old folks in this room, but it -- we can be pretty sure that it will fail. As this country moves beyond the fo ssil fuel era and into the post fossil fuel era, how excited are we going to be -- or are future generations going to be about taking care of our carbon dioxide disposals sites? You know, they are going to have other things they are go ing to be tending to, all the other problems we have left them.

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.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21412 Letter Lines: 127 to 136

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

4Comment: So the fact, the concept that somehow they are going to be managing these sites for hundreds and thousands of years and payi ng great attention to them is just

absurd. And we need to star t with that assumption. They are not going to be well monitored and they are going to fail. Car bon dioxide is a gas, it is a corrosive gas and we can assume that it is going to fail in due time and we have got millions of wells around this country. So carbon dioxide space should only be used to sequester carbon dioxide that ha s been used for processes for which

there is no reasonable altern ative. That may be something like making cement or making steel. Our children and grandchildren may want to make that and they may

need to use coal to do that.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA does not believe that GS is dangerous. The GS rule contains tailored require ments to address the unique natu re of GS, including extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeli ng of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and tr acking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection mon itoring and site care.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21413 Letter Lines: 138 to 143

Comment Code: 1370 1.1.3.5 US storage capacity

Comment: Every other process when we have a carbon free alternative, that should be the

first choice and that should be a crit eria before carbon, a CCS project is approved because that CCS space, if we ar e able to find some spaces that are actually able to stand up to really thorough scientific analysis then that is going to be a very valuable site and it should only be used for processes that do not have a good alternative.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. The purpos e 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. EPA clarifies that approval of GS projects will be based on a demonstration that the CO2 inject ion will not endanger USDWs. The Class VI GS rule requires the owner or operator to provide extensive information to demonstrate to the Director, as specified at §§146.82 and 146.83, that the CO2 will be contained within the injection formation. EPA clarifies that siting and approval of facilities for capturing and transporting CO2 are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rule.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21414 Letter Lines: 145 to 152

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: I would like to underscore the importan ce of waiting for the results. You actually talked to geologists who go up to Sleipner and ac tually look at what is

5going on. Success, it is kind of like sayi ng Lehman Brothers is a successful company as long as you are talking about Se ptember 1 or whatever that day was before they failed so, success depends on how much data you calculate and gather. So it is very important to get that information just as the AWWA representative pointed out, before we fina lize any rules. It w ould be completely absurd to try and go ahead. We need to ma ke sure that all data is completely

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research w ill be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that th e Agency should wait for all cu rrent field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Ag ency believes that es tablishing a regulatory framework for the future development and depl oyment of CCS technolo gy provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endanger ment of USDWs.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requiremen ts are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to pr oceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other

research as it becomes available.

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21415 Letter Lines: 152 to 159

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

Comment: absurd to try and go ahead. We need to ma ke sure that all data is completely transparent, fully available to the pub lic and all assumptions are identified clearly in plain English when you actuall y decipher some of the scientific papers that are being used to prep are 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. Th at is not -- does not take a lot of brains, but it is hard to dig down and fi nd those assumptions, so I think that is all. Thank you very much.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that all information pres ented to the public must be clear, understandable, and available. 40 CFR 124.10 requi res EPA to provide public notice when a draft permit is prepared. Additi onally, stakeholders may request copies of the draft permit and the permit application during the draft permit comme nt period; the applica tion 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 eas ily understood by a lay audience. Permitting authorities are required produce a fact sheet that summarizes relevant information for the public in a much more unders tandable format than the supporting data in a permit application. See §124.8. The fact sheet desc ribes the draft permit conditions, procedures to determine the final decision on the permit, any procedures to request a hearing, and

67 procedures that may be available for additiona l public participation in the final permitting decision. EPA will encourage permitting authorities a nd operators to present all modeling data to the public.

Please note that EPA is not required under §124.10 to provide public no tice of a request for permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is denied. Furthermore, public notices may describe more than one permit action.Letter ID: 0528 Commenter: Cynthia Lane Organization: American Wate r Works Association (AWWA)

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21381 Letter Lines: 25 to 32

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: Our overarching concern regarding geologi c carbon sequestration is the potential contamination of underground sources of dri nking water from in jection activities and the potential for other unintende d and potential, possibly harmful

consequences.

AWWA is particularly concerned about th e potential for contamination of sole source aquifers and suggests that these aquifers be provided special protective measures in the proposed rule. We also support the portion of the rule that

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking wa ter is an important resource to protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Consistent with §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall be

authorized if it results in the movement of flui d containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a viola tion of any primary drinking water regulation or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12.

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA expects that the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

The GS rule, at §146.82(a)(5) requir es prospective owners or opera tors to submit information on all USDWs within the AoR. EPA expects that this information will include identification of any sole source aquifers. The GS rule also requires operators to submit extensive information about the site, including the geologic characteristics of the inject ion and confining zones, to demonstrate that the injected CO2 will remain w ithin the target formation. The Director must consider this information when determining wh ether GS is acceptable at a given site. EPA expects that during this evaluation the Director will consider the potential impact of the GS project on any sole source aquifers.

EPA agrees that, in many cases, UIC Directors will have extensive knowledge of which areas are

suitable for GS, but clarifies that it is the res ponsibility of Class VI permit applicants to demonstrate the suitability of a particular site or formation. It is the respon sibility of the Director

to evaluate the information collected and s ubmitted by the owner or operator to determine whether a permit for GS at the site is appropriate.

1Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21382 Letter Lines: 32 to 33

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

USDW

Comment: measures in the proposed rule. We also support the portion of the rule that prohibits injection of carbon dioxide above th e lower most USDW.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI in jection depth requirement s for injection into nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conj unction with the permit appl ication submission) to demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-US DW that is above or between USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying information that owners or operators must subm it, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors; 2) procedur es for public notice of a waiver application a nd for DirectorRegional Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone.

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 w ill ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC Program Dir ectors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to concerns a bout local and regional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) allo ws for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injecti on depth variability thr ough a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficien t quantities to supply dr inking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21383 Letter Lines: 35 to 50

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

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

USDW

Comment: As the demand for water increases during the upcoming century and changes in climate impact traditional water supplie s, water utilities will look for new sources of drinking water. It is likely that as a resu lt of these changes, there

2will be a greater reliance on ground water for both new supplies and conjunctive use. The possibility exists that utilit ies might want to use some of these injection site aquifers as new potable sources. In fact, in several communities across the country, brackish waters that are previously considered to be unusable because they are above ten thousa nd TDS are now being used as drinking

water sources.

As desalination technology advances, the br ackish water sources are treated to EPA drinking water standards and provided to water utility customers. As this technology improves, even more saline water may be used in the future therefore AWWA suggest that the selection standards for potential injection aquifers and for USDW's be reviewed and revised to prev ent contamination of aquifers that may

be considered viable sources of dr inking water in the near future.

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter’s concerns about water

resources and future water resource availabilit y. However, modifying the definition of a USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. USDWs are defined as aquifers currently being used as sources of drinking water or those capable of supplying a public water system, with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less as specified in §144.3.

The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment in order to ensure a reliable supply of drinking water for the American public. The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulati ons, continues the program ’s tradition of ensuring the protection of USDWs. EPA expects that the tailored pe rmitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-inject ion site care requirements in the GS rule will prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

As described above, EPA agrees that protect ing USDWs from endangerment must be a top priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI in jection depth requirement s for injection into nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21384 Letter Lines: 52 to 66

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: Owner/operators should be required to i nvolve local planning departments and water utilities to determine if any of our subsurface aquifers may be used as drinking water source in the future.

Water chemistry in the u nderground setting is comple x and AWWA has several technical concerns regarding the po tential for carbon sequestration to contaminate USDWs. Preventing degradation of water should not just be limited to

contaminants with established maximum contaminant levels, but should also

3include other constituents whose presen ce may either make ground water more difficult to treat or impact the bene ficial uses of at ground water.

Several references on geologic carbon se questration discussed changes in the carbonate cycle resulting in lowered pH conditions and the release of iron, manganese, arsenic and possibly other inor ganics into groundwater surrounding the injection zone.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that ex isting regulations under 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) require the notification of local governments with jurisdiction over the ar ea where the Class VI well is proposed to be located when the draft pe rmit is available for public comment. In addition, EPA has added a requirement at §124.10(c)(1)(xi) that the PWSS program director, among other agencies, must be notified as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit. EPA expects

that the PWSS director will inform PWSs in the area of review about the proposed GS project.

EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS , including the potential that CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials that could mobilize contaminants or compromise pore space, and ther efore injectivity. The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate pot ential/identified risks through proper site

characterization, well constructi on, operation, monitoring, post-inje ction site care, and site closure. To ensure USDW protection and mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires the owner or operator of a Class VI well to submit data abou t the site (during the site characterization process), including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the injection and confining zones, along with info rmation on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as specified in §146.82. This data will help identify pot ential geochemical reactions that may occur between the injected CO2 and th e host geologic formation. Iden tification of pot ential reactions prior to injection would address concerns that formation of car bonic acid could dissolve potential limestone creating karst features.

During injection operations, opera tors must extensivel y monitor ground water quality to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to address any adverse effects associated with the GS operation, including contamination as specified in §146.94, and provide financial responsib ility to address contamination as specified in §146.85.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21385 Letter Lines: 68 to 70

Comment Code: 4610 2.6.1 Testing and monitoring plan requirement (seeking comment)

Comment: We need appropriate subsurface monitoring technology identified and developed to prevent or respond to potential contamina tion of USDW's, by these and other chemical compounds.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that prescribing specific technologies to be used in

4all cases for GS would be appropriate given the variability in sites. Ra ther EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and reco mmended approaches for implem enting a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testin g of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during ope ration, groundwater quali ty monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface ai r monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verificat ion, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in

the docket for the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21386 Letter Lines: 72 to 73

Comment Code: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance

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

Comment: EPA should provide guidance on acceptable monitoring techniques and frequency, provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance on testing a nd monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologie s and recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring pla n, including pre-operatio nal geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during opera tion, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plum e and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type /groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21387 Letter Lines: 73 to 83

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, trapping mechanism)

Comment Code: 3130 2.1.3 Comments that operators s hould submit more (or different) geologic data than proposed

Comment: provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another area of concern is often the lack of g ood records of abandoned wells that tap the very same strata used for carbon dioxide sequestra tion. There is a presumption that even states with oil and gas or mini ng operation have excellent, up to date reports and have maps indicating abandoned wells and mines. This is not always the case. Ma ny states with extractive industries do have maps and surveys, but they are not sufficiently prec ise for geologic

5sequestration. Studies have shown that in jected carbon dioxide will be able to

find the abandoned wells. These wells allow for the transmission of the carbon

dioxide out of the confined aquifer into potential USDW's and then eventually to

the surface.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that areas previously used for drilling for oil, gas, or minerals pose potential challenges for GS. Howeve r, regardless of the history of the site, the owner or operator must provide to the Director extensive information demonstrating the adequacy of the site to contai n the CO2 (§146.82). This informati on includes the location of all existing or abandoned wells within the m odeled AoR (§§146.82(a)(2) and 146.84(c)(2)) and the location, orientation, and propert ies of all known or existing fa ults (§146.82(a )(3)(ii)). The Director may require ground or airborne surveys to identify active or aba ndoned wells if there is reason to believe, based on knowledge of the site or of available data bases, that the available information is not adequate for assessing a pr oposed GS site (§146.84(c)(2)). The Director may also require additional surveys and tests to iden tify and characterize fractures. After reviewing the permit information submitted, the Director may deny the application if there is reason to

believe that USDWs ma y be endangered.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21388 Letter Lines: 85 to 96

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and pilot projects re lated to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the results of these projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized.

We believe that the results of this research are crucial to their good development of a comprehensive regulation th at protects water resources from the potential unintended consequences of geologic carbon sequestration. In particular, we believe that research on the potential pathways for contamination of USDW's has not ye t been completed. As a result, we are concerned that the appropriate subsurface monitoring methods and technologies have not been adequately identified or developed.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research w ill be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE p ilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes th at establishing a regulat ory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EP A published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Esca tawpa, Mississippi; the

Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah ; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico), including the feasibility and appropriateness of various monitoring technologies. EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule a nd will continue to monitor ongoing research. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and re view data on GS projects to determine whether

6the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being

collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are a ppropriate or necessary.

The GS regulation builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billio ns of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this framewor k with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsur face geologic formations. These additional protective requirements include more extensiv e geologic testing, deta iled computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations , detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressu re front, and extended post-inject ion monitoring and site care.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21389 Letter Lines: 98 to 100

Comment Code: 4500 2.5 Proposed Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT) Requirements (40 CFR 146.89)

Comment Code: 4546 2.5.2.2 MIT frequency (seeking comment)

Comment: We believe that the mechanical integrity testing requirements ar e well developed in the rule and that the one year time period that is required will provide for the protection of USDW's.

Individual Response: EPA agrees and believes that the MI Ts described in §146.89(c) of the rule (e.g., an approved tracer log or temperature or no ise logs) are effective methods to demonstrate external MI, provide an importa nt early warning of potential problems in the injection well system, and represent standard techniques that have been used successfully by the drilling industry and for the UIC Program for decades. For additional information, please see the discussion of MITs in the final rule preamble.

EPA also believes that annual MITs are jus tifiable for the protection of USDWs from endangerment given the unique nature of CO2 GS relative to other injection operations, including the potential corrosive impact of CO2 in the presence of water and impurities on well materials, the potential geomechanical impacts to well integrity due to CO2 phase changes, the temperature and pressure effect s associated with injecting supercritical CO2, and the buoyant nature of the injected CO2. Because of the unknown long-term effects of CO2 GS, EPA chose a more conservative initial approach in th e early stages of deployment for GS.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21390 Letter Lines: 102 to 110

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

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

Comment: Finally, AWWA supports the rule requireme nt for the fifty year period for post

7injection site care. However, we suggest th at it be set at a fifty year minimum

with no discretion to shorten. Give n the potential scope of carbon sequestration, this will provide for c onsistent approach across the U.S., provide strong long term protec tive measures of USDW's.

In conclusion, AWWA is con cerned that the proposed la rge scale sequestration of carbon dioxide in underground aquifers may have a significant impact on the public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a 50 year post-injec tion site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective post-inje ction site monitoring period fo r most projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe. EPA

bases this on a review of research studies, i ndustry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. Furthermor e, EPA believes that a 50-year default postinjection site care timeframe is not overly burdensome, does not ex aggerate the risks associated with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs from endangerment. For this reason, the final GS regulation retains the 50 ye ar post-injection site care timeframe, as speci fied in §146.93(b)(1).

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

comments.

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

8Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21391 Letter Lines: 110 to 115

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that the results of current research and pilot projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized. We are aware of the impacts th at climate change will ha ve on water utilities across the country or recognize that something needs to be done to address climate change.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete befo re finalizing the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21392 Letter Lines: 117 to 119

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS

Comment: While we acknowledge that geologic carbon se questration has been identified as a means to combat climate change, we urge caution as we proceed with this technology. Thank you.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that , where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a ma nner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

9Letter ID: 0529 Commenter: Nancy LaPlaca

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21493 Letter Lines: 19 to 21

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: 80219 and I am here to comment today on EPA's underground inje ction control on

CO2 and to talk about a number of reasons why this is a really, really bad idea and not someplace we should put billions of dollars.

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. For additional informa tion on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21494 Letter Lines: 23 to 44

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule

Comment: Every pound of coal burned creates three pounds of CO2. It is very unique in that way. And CO2 is a very stable mol ecule and so it is very difficult to capture and the theory behind this whole clean, so-called clean coal is that you can burn coal in such a way that you can cap ture the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere and then liquify it and th en transport it somewhere and then pump it underground. Well, just to compress the CO2 I understand from a guy named Erin Coopman [phonetic] who is with a co mpany called RamGen [phonetic] and they make the big huge machines that compress CO2 and so he gave me a price of $17 a ton to compress CO2 so if you take your average coal plant that maybe emits let's say a small one, or medium sized one 3 million tons a year, then that is going to cost three times 17 million dollars a ton for every year, so that is like $51 million dollars. That is just to compress the CO2. Then you are supposed to take this liquid CO2 and pu mp it underground. It is a very highly corrosive liquid and that really wants to become a gas again and when you cool the liquid, when you cool the gas I mean in to a liquid, you have to bring it to a temperature of minus 240 Fahrenheit whic h is an extremely energy intensive process; takes a lot of power to do that and they estimate that it takes about 20% of the plants power just to captu re the CO2. Now because no one in the United States has ever actually capture d that CO2, liquified it and pumped it

1somewhere yet in combination with making el ectricity, we do not even know what the total parasitic load woul d be and some people estimate that that could be as high as maybe 25 or 30%.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule a ddresses sequestrati on only, not capture, compression, or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are like ly to be influenced by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transpor t, and sequestration. EPA adds that it does not establish or attempt to influence electricity costs – they are set by factors the Agency does not control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 percent of the total CCS project costs.

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21495 Letter Lines: 46 to 65

Comment Code: 1620 1.3.2 Induced seismicity

Comment: In addition when you pump liquid CO 2 underground, you basically lubricate existing faults and here in Denver, in the 1960's, they injected 165 million gallons of liquid toxic waste from Rocky Mountain arsenal unde rneath the Denver basin and they created some 1,500 seismic events between 1962 and 1967. Three of those events were over magnitude five. My husband was a little boy living here then and most people who lived here then and remembered that, remember those earthquakes very clearly.

My father-in-law, George Bardwell, mathem atician who taught at DU was approached by a group of geologists headed by a guy na med David Evans who is now deceased. David Evans and my father-in-law George E. Bardwell now 84 years old this year -- George did a study for them correlating the injection of these liquids with seismic events. The more they injected, the more earthquakes there were. The less they injected, th e less earthquakes and actually George told me that it took a long time and they really did not come out with this blue ribbon panel report that they were promising for years and years. They went to the press, George Bardwell my father-in-law and th ese geologists and the press would not report on it. They went to the govern ment and they said you know what government, there is a real problem with this and the government would not

listen to them either.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that induced seismi city is a risk that may be

associated with GS but maintains that the risk is low (IPCC, 2005). The GS rule contains several requirements to address seismic risk. First, as part of the site characteriza tion process, owners or operators must submit information about the se ismic history of and seismic sources near a proposed GS site, data on known or suspected fa ults in the AoR, geomechanical information on fractures, stress, ductility, rock strength, and in si tu fluid pressures within the confining zone as specified in §146.82(a)(3). This information is evaluated by the Director, who determines the suitability of a potential project site for GS. Any sites with the poten tial for reopening or

reactivation of faults or un acceptable seismic risk that co uld otherwise interfere with

2containment will not be permitted as GS sites. Duri ng injection, the pressure in the injection zone must not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pre ssure of the injection zone as specified in §146.88(a); this requirement is inte nded to prevent the opening of fractures or faults through over pressurization of the injection zone.

EPA adds that the seismic episodes at the Ro cky Mountain Arsenal, which occurred in the 1960s—before the original UIC regulations were developed—were due to poor site characterization and well operation, including high, unmonitored injection pressures (73 FR 43498). While EPA acknowledges that the volumes of CO2 injected at GS sites will likely be larger than the volumes of waste water injected at the Rocky Mountain Ar senal, injection volume

is not the sole factor that de termines induced seismicity. Induced seismicity also depends on other geologic variables such as pre-existi ng faults, porosity, and permeability (Sminchak & Gupta, 2003). With proper site characterizati on (i.e., pursuant to §146.82), these variables can often be quantified prior to in jection (Sminchak and Gupta, 2003) and used to identify sites capable of safely sustaining prolonged injection of large volumes with low risk. As long as a site is well-characterized and monitored, and the injection volume and rate remain within permitted limits set forth by the Director, the injection of large volumes of fl uid should not increase the risk of seismic activity.

EPA does not believe that limiting GS to "stable ar eas" will provide certainty that seismic events will not occur. The Agency acknowledges that some regions of the country are at risk for infrequent, damage-causing seismic events even if such events have not been recorded in the recent historical record (i.e., in the past seve ral hundred years). For this reason, EPA requires seismic risk to be evaluated on a site-specific basi s, through an analysis of seismic history and an evaluation of known or suspected faults in th e AoR, geomechanical information on fractures, stress, ductility, rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures within the confining zone as specified in §146.82(a)(3). In addition, if an adverse event, such as a well failure or evidence of fluid movement were to occur, the monitoring requ irements at §146.90 and emergency and remedial response requirements as specified in §146.94 provide addi tional protection.

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21496 Letter Lines: 67 to 75

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: And so the lesson for all of us I think is that it is up to us citizens. I have been working on coal issues for two year s completely unpaid and myself and my friend filed a complaint against a gasifi ed coal plant that was going to be built here in Colorado, Excel Energy was proposing to build an IGCC plant over 4,000 feet elevation, get a $130 million from th e feds to build a gasified coal plant here in Colorado and we let them know that this was not going to happen without a fight. They actually withdrew th eir proposal last Oc tober and are not building one here. However, states like Ke ntucky, Ohio, Illinois where there is a lot more political pressure, they are still getting stuck w ith these plants.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the re gulation of coal gasification power plants is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather , the purpose of the UI C GS regulation is to

3ensure that GS is conducted in a manner th at protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA’s re sponses to this comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21497 Letter Lines: 77 to 86

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule

Comment: Future Gen which some have dubbed Never Gen which is this prot otype clean coal plant that was going to be built in Sout h Illinois, but is now up in the air, that was going to cost a whopping $6,500 a k ilowatt. To put that in, to compare

that to other -- costs of other electric generation, wi nd is about even with escalated costs today about $2,000 a kilowatt to build a plant. Concentrating solar is about $3,000 or $ 4,000 a kilowatt, maybe $5,000 a kilowatt, but that includes storage, [indecipherable] salt stor age. Nuclear power plants anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 a kilowatt and incide ntally in the energy bill right

now, there is somewhere between 90 a nd 190 billion dollars in giveaways for nuclear industry and the energy policy act of 2008.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addr esses sequestration onl y, not capture or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transp ort, and sequestration.

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21498 Letter Lines: 88 to 115

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment: And so what have I learned from all of this? That wind is cheap. Energy efficiency is really, really cheap. Con centrating solar is here, it is now, it is working. It costs a fraction of what this gasified coal cost s and what are we doing? We [indecipherable] our planet so all the young people that I see in this audience here, I see young people and I am afraid of what the world is going to look like when your hair looks like mine . I am fearful of that and I am fortunate to have a husband and a family th at will let me quit my job and work

for free full time on this issue so that we can stop this stupidity because all

it takes is facts and information. And you know, we can whine and the coal industry is spending $100 million to convince us that coal is clean. Nothing can change this basic ratio. One pound of coal burned, three pounds of CO2; a very, very stable molecule that takes a lot of energy to compress, chill and then you pump it somewhere. This is absolute madness.

And so I will submit my materials online. You know it is inte resting, here in Colorado, Excel Energy was fighting a gasifi ed coal plant in Minnesota. I think

45 most of the testimony that we used was fr om Excel, so they we re fighting against by a coal plant in Minnesota because they did not own it, and they wanted to build one here. Why? Because they want to put billions of dollars into [indecipherable] base and force rate paye rs, normal people to pay the bills. It

is sort of like this bail out, but ri ght now where you know, the big guys run away with the real cash so that when they make a profit, they get to keep it. When it does not work, they just stick it to the tax payers and so basically this is an incredible [indecipherable] and I hope we have the good sense for all the young people and all the people on this planet, the six billion people on the planet who are not part of the problem. They can only deal with what we here in the United States, 5% of the populati on creating 25 to 40% of the problems in

the world deal them.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the re gulation of coal gasification power plants is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather , the purpose of the UI C GS regulation is to

ensure that GS is conducted in a manner th at protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA’s re sponses to this comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.Letter ID: 0530 Commenter: Doug Louis Organization: Kansas Corporation Commission

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21333 Letter Lines: 33 to 40

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: For states that will have existing ru les specifically, what will happen to projects that are permitted as classified, experimental wells after the EPA passes its rule, but before the states adopt EPA's rules?

Another concept that needs to be fully di scussed is full-scale, not experimental injection facilities that are applied for before proposed EPA rules are adopted? How will they be permitted, that is what class would they be, and who would permit them? The proposed rule should address these specific scenarios.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that GS experimental re search projects will continue to be regulated as Class V experimental technology wells as long as they remain of an experimentalnature. EPA adds that within one year of issuance of the GS rule, projects that are nonexperimental must be re-permitted as Class VI we lls and be subject to the requirements of the GS rule. GS projects that continue to be of an expe rimental nature may continue to be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21334 Letter Lines: 42 to 48

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: Concerning grand-fathering Cl ass II wells to Class VI wells. It is believed a great deal of potential storage CO2 exis ts in CO2 floods af ter oil production ceases. It is my concern that EPA's st ringent standards for well construction monitoring and financial assurance will discourage well operators from using this additional pore space for sequestra tion thus causing waste. If a CO2 recovery operation has successfully ope rated for many years, why should the standards be raised simply because it undergoes a well classification change?

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were en gineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the construction requirements are grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical integrity testing, etc.) must be met fo llowing a determination under §146.81(c).

1In response to the comment that ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using additional pore space for storage, EPA clarifies th at this comment is outsi de the scope of the GS rulemaking. The purpose of the GS rule is not to in centivize the use of GS or to address the use of pore space, but to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger USDWs.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21338 Letter Lines: 50 to 51

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

Comment: Rules that apply to impurities of the CO 2 injectate should be further discussed, determined and defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be more

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.

EPA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be rela tively pure, and research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates are based on limited information, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the various types of CO2 stream s. The concentrations of minor and trace

elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollu tion removal technologies.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21339 Letter Lines: 51 to 53

Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring

Comment: determined and defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be more specific as to what geochemical data need s to be collected; that is from the injection formation, the confini ng layer or from the USDW.

Individual Response: Section §146.90(d) requires period ic monitoring of the ground water quality and geochemical changes above the confin ing zone(s). Monitoring above the confining layer will provide an indication of upward move ment of CO2 that might endanger a USDW. The exact number of formations to be tested must, however, be based on site-specific characteristics

and vulnerabilities and described in the Di rector-approved testing and monitoring plan.

2EPA is developing guidance on testing and mon itoring to assist owne rs or operators and Directors in evaluating requi rements under §146.90, including pr oposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies a nd recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-ope rational geophysical l ogging and testing of injection wells, MITs, injecti on well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, a nd soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. Th e guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/gr oundwater/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21340 Letter Lines: 55 to 61

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

Comment: KCC staff finds the cost of additional containment zones above the confining zones to be confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and the confining zone are competent, well understood and m onitored, there is no need to have a costly and unneeded system of redunda nt containment zones above the two.

Furthermore, the term containment zone ha s was not in the defi nitions section or fully explained.

Individual Response: EPA retains the requirement to iden tify additional containment/confining zones, if required by the Di rector, as proposed (§146.83(b)). EPA acknowledges that such additional zones may not be needed in all circumst ances, and clarifies that this requirement is at the Director's discretion, based on his or her understanding of a part icular site. EPA believes that, in some situations, the presence of additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protecti on. These layers could further impede vertical fluid movement and al low for pressure dissipation, and also provide additional sites for monitoring, mitigation, and re mediation. The Agency's decision is supported by commenters representing states, water associati ons, and an electric utility who assert that these requirements promote a flexible, risk-base d, site-specific approach to characterizing and permitting a site for GS projects, and are intende d to improve understanding of the project as a whole and promote better modeling of the site.

EPA clarifies that the GS rule defines confining zone as "a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation stratigraphica lly overlying the injection zone that acts as barrier to fluid movement." (§146.81(d)).

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21341 Letter Lines: 63 to 67

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to delineate the AoR (seeking comment)

3Comment: KCC staff agrees that the most accurate and realistic method of determining AOR is computational models which are updated regularly in conjunc tion with modeling monitoring of physical trailers. A pr escribed fixed radius surrounding individual wells would not be an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex dynamic CO2 storage facility.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport and agrees that the unique aspects of GS merit the use of sophisticated computational mode ling for delineation of the AoR, based on site-specific features and geology, including the presen ce of faults, fractures, and artificial penetrations. EPA belie ves that computational modeling of the AoR prior to injection will provide the best obtainable estimates of the extent of the CO2 plume over several years of active injection. EPA has streng thened the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation from ten years to at least every 5 y ears (146.84(e)). EPA believes that th is revised frequency addresses

commenters' concerns about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique

nature of CO2 GS.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21342 Letter Lines: 69 to 72

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action

Comment: Phased corrective action for GS wells that lie in front of the path of a CO2 plume would allow companies to concentrat e current capital e xpenditures on wells that represent the highest risk. Wells th at might be affected in the distant

future would be deemed a lower ri sk, thus given a lower priority.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport of phased corrective action and agrees that phased corrective action may provide many benefits to a project including, but not limited to, spreading the burden of cost, avoi ding delays in project start-up, allowing for use of future, improved corrective act ion techniques and addressing unanticipated changes in the movement of the CO2 plume or pressure front . EPA believes that the phased corrective action approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS regulation. EPA clarifies th at wells that might not be affected for some time are not necessarily considered to pose a lower risk; rather they are co nsidered to not pose a risk for the first several years of injection.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21343 Letter Lines: 74 to 85

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment)

Comment: On proposed injection well construction re quirements. The propos ed rule requires the long string casing to be cemented in place along its enti re length. In a significant area of Kansas, cement cannot be circulated to su rface in the bore hole casing annulus in the primary cem enting job. To accomplish a continuous

4cemented interval would involve numerous pipe perforations and cement squeezing operations. This additional remedial work s acrifices mechanical integrity of the pipe for a marginal possibility of additional isolation of the injection zone.

Considering these unique conditions and associated risk, Kansas regulations prescribed an interval of five hundred feet of cemented interval above the injection zone. KCC staff believes an exo tic blend of CO2 resistant cement is not needed considering the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history.

Individual Response: Section 146.86(b)(3) requires that th e long-string casing extend to the injection zone and be cemented by circulating ce ment to the surface in one or more stages. It does not, however, specify how cementing would be accomplished, and gives flexibility to the owner or operator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount of cement to meet the standard that USDWs are pr otected from endangerment, s ubject to the approval of the

Director. EPA notes that there ar e many potential ways to meet the requirement in deep wells, such as the use of staged cementing. EPA has evaluated the cementing requirements for other well classes and believes that flexibility can be afforded while ensuring that USDWs are protected.

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/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA adds that cementing of deep wells has been performed successfully in the past, for example, by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Cl ass I municipal waste disposal wells. Some of these wells, which must meet the same cemen ting requirements for long-string casing as Class VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep (EPA, 2001).

EPA stresses that protection of USDWs is the primary mission and mandate of the UIC program and the purpose of all requirements for inject ion wells. Any injection activity must be demonstrated to not endanger USDWs, regardle ss of their depth, and if such non-endangerment cannot be shown, then the activity will not be allowed under UIC requirements or the SDWA.

EPA recognizes concerns regardi ng construction of Class VI wells where the lowermost USDW is very deep. To further address comments on d eep injection wells, the final GS rule at §146.95 includes requirements for owners or operators that seek a waiver of the injection depth requirements. Owners or operators of wells opera ting under injection depth waivers must comply with additional construction require ments to ensure that wells used to inject above or between USDWs are protective. See the discussion of the wa iver approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule for additional information.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21345 Letter Lines: 87 to 91

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

5Comment: Proposed injection well operating requireme nts. In the proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on the use of tracing material for detection of fugitive CO2. KCC staff's opinion is the comparison of ba seline CO2 levels to monitored levels would provide the same information as would costly and po tentially harmful tracing material. In our opinion, external mechanical integrity testing at a one

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tracer use is not appropriate in all situations. Some tracers may have the potential to cause harm to people or the environment. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites. Nevertheless there are many different types of tracers and not all are problematic; research is being done to overcome problems with existing

tracers. EPA believes that tracers have been used safely and successfully in other applications.

Therefore the Director has discreti on to require their us e if he/she determin es that the use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the

Director.

If an owner or operator proposes th e use of tracers at a GS site, EPA anticipates that the specific

tracers to be used would be described in the testing and monitoring plan, which the Director

would evaluate in the context of other information about the GS site. The Director would assess

the use of tracers in the context of site-specific information, incl uding risks to USDWs and other

environmental and health risks.

EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experi ment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of tracers, including PFTs, sulfur hexafluorid e, and the noble gases krypton, neon, and xenon. These studies (e.g., Phelps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al. 2005) found that tracers can provide useful CO2 monitoring information at injection wells as well as ne ar-surface locations. At Frio, tracers enabled quantification of CO2 plume behavior and provided a technique for model validity testing (McCallum et al., 2005). EPA will conti nue to track research related to tracer use.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21346 Letter Lines: 91 to 93

Comment Code: 4546 2.5.2.2 MIT frequency (seeking comment)

Comment: tracing material. In our opinion, external mechanical integrity testing at a one year frequency is excessive and not wa rranted. The frequency which Kansas requires in the regulation is once every four years.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a four-year extern al MIT is appropriate. The final GS regulation retains the requirement that owners or operators of Class VI wells must demonstrate injection well external mech anical integrity at least once annually under §146.89(c). EPA believes this is justifiable for the protecti on of USDWs from endangerment given the unique nature of CO2 GS relative to other injection operations, including the pote ntial corrosive impact of CO2 in the presence of water and impurities on well materials, the potential geomechanical impacts to well integrity due to CO2 phase ch anges, the temperature and pressure effects

6associated with injecting supercritical CO2, and the buoyant nature of th e injected CO2. Because of the unknown long-term effects of CO2 GS, EPA chose a more cons ervative initial approach in the early stages of deployment for GS.

In addition, a comprehensive review conducte d by EPA of MIT results from 1993 to 1998 found that Class I wells injecting corrosi ve fluids fail MITs at rates two to three times higher than those that inject non-corrosive fluids (USEPA 1999). Given the potentia l for CO2 to be corrosive (e.g., in the presence of water or aqueous formation flui ds), there is a potential risk factor for MIT

failure and, for this reason, EPA be lieves that the tailored MIT requi rements in the final GS rule are appropriate.

EPA adds that it is using an ad aptive approach to regulating GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including MIT da ta, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information a nd appropriate documentation are being collected,

and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21347 Letter Lines: 95 to 99

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

Comment: Proposed well plugging post injection site care and site closure requirements. The proposed rule sets the post injection site care peri od at a default period of fifty years. KCC agrees that the UI C program director should have the authority to shorten or lengthen the po st injection site care period if the owner/operator demonstrates a differe nt time period is appropriate.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director shou ld have discretion to shorten or lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has reta ined this provision in the final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). EPA adds that the final rule at §146.93(c), also allows the Director to approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe where an owner or operator can demonstrate during the permitting process that an a lternative post-injection site care timeframe, other than the 50 year default, is appropr iate and ensures non-endangerment of USDWs.

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the be st position to determine whether additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be shortened) or whether an alternative PISC timeframe is appropr iate, based on the circumstances of a particular project. EPA expects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in consultation with all potentia lly impacted parties.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21348 Letter Lines: 101 to 105

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

7Comment: Proposed financial responsibility and long term care requirements. The proposed rule states EPA would provide guidance to be developed at a later date which describes recommended types of owner/operato r financial responsibility. On such an important concept, should it not be a ddressed in the propo sed rule rather

than clarified th rough guidance?

Individual Response: In response to public comments, EPA has added more specific requirements to the rule. These include a list of permitted financial instruments, timeframes for adjusting cost estimates, requirements for protec tive coverage, steps to take in the event of

adverse financial conditions, and others. Howeve r, EPA believes flexibility in the financial responsibility requirements is also appropriate. Under the final GS rule owners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet their financial re sponsibility obligations, provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to prevent endange rment of USDWs, includi ng corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response. See the final rule a nd preamble for further discussi on of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

EPA is developing guidance to help owners or op erators, permitting authorities, and third parties choose and evaluate appropriate financial methods , and states may set more specific financial responsibility requirements if they so choose. This guidance is available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21349 Letter Lines: 107 to 111

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

Comment: In conclusion, it is our vote the EPA w ill 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 fo r the past three fis cal years. It has also become increasingly difficult for st ates to manage numerous programs that demand increasing budgets, but undergo annual funding decreases.

Individual 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 acquiri ng 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 th at 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 ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

8Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 25076 Letter Lines: 84 to 85

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

Comment: injection zone. KCC staff believes an exo tic blend of CO2 resistant cement is not needed considering the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies the final rule does not mandate the use

of corrosion resistant cemen t; the requirement at §146.86(b)(5) is that cement and cement additives must be compatible with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life of the GS proj ect. It should be noted that in Carey et al. (2007), their research on the ER- CO2 injection well at SACROC was unable to determine whether CO2 in the presence of wate r, dry CO2, or a CO2-br ine mixture had caused the cement alteration observed. In Crow et al. (2 008), the well materials studied were from a production well producing from a natural CO2 deposit that also produced associated water, so well materials were presumably exposed to CO 2 in the presence of water. Meyer (2007) acknowledges the Carey study found no loss of hydrau lic integrity after 30 years, but also

mentions the use of acid-resistant cements in wells used for acid gas injection and where brine is

encountered.

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.

9Letter ID: 0531

Commenter: Barbara Massoner Organization: Legacy Economy

Letter ID: 0531 Comment ID: 21442 Letter Lines: 23 to 30

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: In the past week with the economic crisis , it has illustrated it is essential to develop sensible regulations before a cr isis hits. Toning down regulations based on threats from industry that the government oversight is going to have an impact on our economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it is the other way around. Therefore, I comm end the EPA for addressing carbon sequestration. It is essential that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that we have a healthy environment, but so th at we can usher in a prosperous economy for the next generation.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0531 Comment ID: 21443 Letter Lines: 32 to 39

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS

Comment: Coal and gas have powered our economy fo r the past century. This however is a new century and it requires new regulations and those regulations must include

externalities which we have not include d in the past. Only by including externalities can regulations provide a level playing field for all involved.

And externalities in this cas e are not CO2's, but they al so are as Cynthia Lane pointed out with AWWA, a te st that includes CCWs, th at is coal combustion wastes. And those externalities are very important as they would include chemicals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium and a list of other toxins.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule fo cuses on protection of USDWs from endangerment; therefore coal combustion wastes a nd other externalities th e commenter mentions are outside of the scope of the UIC rulemaking.

12 Letter ID: 0531 Comment ID: 21444 Letter Lines: 41 to 50

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed

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

Comment: We do not want to contaminate our groundwat er with those carci nogens. The fact is that CCWs, this is a significant issue in that each year our power plants produce enough of this stuff to fill a trai n of coal cars that stretches from Manhattan to Los Angeles not just once, not just twice, but three and a half times. It is a huge problem and the EPA ha s pointed out that these toxins are carcinogenic and EPA has also stated that there are no regulations for these toxins. Therefore I urge the EPA when you are considering these regulations on CO2 sequestration that you broaden them to include CCWs. Stricter rules will not set us back economically, but rather it is going to ensure that the next generation has a prosperity to grow like our generation has.

Individual Response: It is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to require or set standards for upstream manageme nt of coal combustion wastes (CCWs), also known as coal combustion residuals (CCRs). Th e UIC program’s authority under the SDWA is limited to ensuring that GS project s are sited, constructed, operate d, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs. EPA is separa tely considering standards for the management of CCRs under RCRA. See 75 Fed. Reg. 35128 (proposed rule).Letter ID: 0532

Commenter: Mike Moore Organization: North American Carbon Capt ure and Storage Asso ciation (NACCSA)

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21364 Letter Lines: 27 to 27

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regul ations. CCS holds si gnificant promise

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and belie ves that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) unde r the existing UIC Program is necessa ry to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injecti on of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues as sociated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic

formations.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21365 Letter Lines: 27 to 30

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regul ations. CCS holds si gnificant promise to manage carbon emissions and should be pa rt of any climate change regime. CCS

is also essential to enhanced oil and gas recovery which we believe can be combined with permanent storage.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside th e scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the pur poses of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II prog ram, as long as any oil or gas production is occurring. The UIC GS requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS. For additional information on EPA’s approach to wells that are transitioning from ER to GS, see

the discussion of Class II wells under “How Does This Rule Affect Existing Injection Wells Under the UIC Program?” in the preamble to the final GS rule.

1Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21366 Letter Lines: 32 to 37

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

USDW

Comment: Our first area of concern relates to EPA's proposed limitations on receiving formations. It permits injections onl y beneath the lower most formation containing a USDW. This limitation will ha mper deployment of CCS by excluding many sites otherwise suitable for CCS. Such a blanket limitation is unnecessary because operators will be required to s how that projects will not endanger drinking water sources.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for inject ion into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. Additionally, the rule does not categorically preclude or pr ohibit injection into any type of

formation.

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

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21367 Letter Lines: 39 to 43

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operat ing Requirements (40 CFR 146.88)

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

Comment: The second area of concern is the proposed rule's treatment of CCS operations and monitoring. The proposed rule would require CCS wells to meet or exceed the operating standards of industrial and hazar dous waste wells in many cases. NACSA

believes that such treatment is not justified by the attr ibutes of carbon

dioxide. Also the director would have di scretion without any guidance to require

2Individual Response: The Agency recognizes that while ther e are similarities between injection of wastes for disposal (Class I) and GS (Class VI), there are significant differences as well. Important unique considerations for GS include the buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity when in

contact with water, its low visc osity (i.e., high mobility), and th e very large injection volumes that are anticipated. There is also a degree of unc ertainty regarding the be havior of large volumes

of CO2 in the subsurf ace after injection.

Given these characteristics of anticipated GS projects, EPA believes that the monitoring requirements at §146.90 are justified to provide early warning of any unforeseen fluid movement or problems with the injection well that might endanger USDWs. EPA emphasizes that monitoring of injection activit ies will be an important comp onent of every GS project. Monitoring associated with injection wells and th e movement of the CO2 plume is necessary to verify that the injectate is confined in the target formations and does not endanger USDWs.

EPA believes the operating requirements for Class VI wells are necessary and provide multiple safeguards to ensure that well inte grity, containment of fluids with in the injection zone, and that the integrity of the confining z one is not compromised. Some of the operating requirements in the GS regulation (e.g., pressure limitations or annulus pressure requir ements) are consistent with those for other injection well types, while other requirements (e.g., use of automatic shut-off systems or tracers at the Director's discretion) ar e tailored to directly address the potential for large volumes of CO2 to be in jected, among other factors.

The requirements for GS projects are tailored to address the unique issues associated with GS including large injection volumes, the relative buo yancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. EPA also believes these re quirements are appropriate for Class VI wells given the potential geomechanical stresses in the wellbore, and the potential for movement of the CO2 in the event of a mechanical integrity loss.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21368 Letter Lines: 43 to 47

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

Comment Code: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking comment)

Comment: dioxide. Also the director would have di scretion without any guidance to require tracers and/or gas monitoring to detect movement of carbon dioxide that could endanger a USDW. NACSA belie ves that these methods should not be required because there are too many questions about their efficacy and the potential risk posed by tracers.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that air and soil ga s monitoring are subject to sitespecific limitations and may not be suitable in all settings as a me thod to ensure USDW protection. However, EPA does not believe that this should entirely preclude their use. If surface monitoring were the only monitoring method employed to ensu re USDW protection, direct

3correlation of CO2 at the surface with CO2 in th e subsurface might be difficult; however, when combined with information gathered through othe r monitoring techniques required of GS well owners and operators (e.g., monitoring wells, geophysical te chniques), air and soil gas monitoring may provide valuable data on the magnitude and location of a leak. The CO2 itself may serve as a tracer in the form of stable is otopes of carbon. For exam ple, anthropogenic CO2 is depleted in 13C compared to naturally occurring CO2.

Used in conjunction with deep subsurface monitoring, as required at §146.90, and as part of a multi-barrier approach to protecting USDWs fr om endangerment, surface air and soil gas monitoring will increase USDW protection, enable immediate no tification of the UIC Director in the case of potential USDW endangerme nt, and facilitate remedial action.

The decision to use surface monitoring and the selection of monitoring methods will be sitespecific (e.g., may be influenced by geology, in jection depth, and opera tional conditions) and must be based on potential risks to USDWs within the AoR. The final rule at §146.90(h) retains

the allowance for surface air and soil gas monitoring at the discreti on of the Director as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UI C Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c).

EPA agrees that tracer use is not appropriate in all situations. So me tracers may have the potential to cause harm to peopl e or the environment. For this reason, EPA does not require the

use of tracers at all GS sites. Nevertheless there are many differen t types of tracers and not all are problematic; research is being done to overcom e problems with existing tracers. EPA believes

that tracers have been used safe ly and successfully in other applications. Th erefore the Director has discretion to require their use if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW prot ection from endangerment. The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director.

EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experi ment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of tracers, including perfluorocar bon tracers (PFTs), sulfur hexa fluoride, and the noble gases krypton, neon, and xenon. These studies (e.g., Phel ps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al., 2004; McCallum et al., 2005) found that tracers can pr ovide useful CO2 monitoring information at injection wells at depth and at near-surface locations. At Frio, tracers enabled quantification of CO2 plume behavior and provide d a technique for model validity testing (McCallum et al., 2005). EPA will continue to track research related to tracer use. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documenta tion are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21369 Letter Lines: 49 to 57

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

Comment: The third area of concern is the proposed fifty year default post injection site

4care period. While some minimum period may be appropriate, a fi fty year period is arbitrary and unwarranted by the specifi c characteristics of carbon dioxide. We note that the program director has di scretion to extend or shorten the period without guidance. NACSA proposes that th e rule adopt a peri od of performance based standard based on project specific information gained through the site characterization and monitoring phase. Alte rnatively the Agency should shorten the default period significantly to refl ect the time required to assess CCS project work.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the decision to us e a default 50 year time period for PISC was arbitrarily made. In determining the post-injection site care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synt hesis of pertinent resu lts from GS modeling studies in the preamble to the proposed regulatio n. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computational Modeling of Unde rground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underg round Sources of Drinking Water." Based on

review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA believe s that a 50 year postinjection site care timeframe represents a re asonable and protective monitoring period and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe. Furthermore, EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe, as required at §146.93(b)(1), is not overly burdens ome, does not exaggerate the risks associated with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs from endangerment.

To address concerns that, in some situations, it ca n be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the du ration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the

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

discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timef rame may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pur suant to requireme nts at §146.93(c).

EPA 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.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21370 Letter Lines: 59 to 64

5Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financia l responsibility requirements (40 CFR 146.85)

Comment: The fourth area of concern relates to th e proposed rule's financial assurance requirements. The proposed rules place gr eater financial assu rance requirements on Class VI wells than currently apply to Class I hazardous waste wells. NACSA believes that the physical and chemical properties of carbon dioxide injected for storage do not warrant such treatment and could prevent the deployment of

CCS.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements on financial responsibility are overly stringent. The goal of financial resp onsibility is to ensure that fi nancial resources are available to prevent or remediate the endangerment of US DWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owne r or operator experiences financial difficulties. EPA disagrees that the requirements equate GS we lls with Class I hazardous waste wells; rather, the financial responsibility requirements for Clas s VI wells are tailored to account for the unique nature of the long term GS of CO2, while providi ng flexibility for site specific implementation.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21371 Letter Lines: 66 to 77

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: The fifth area relates to the proposed ru le's grandfathering of existing wells. Under the proposed rule, if a Class II or V well operator wishes to transition to Class VI well, the op erator would be required to meet new Class VI requirements. This discourages early de ployment of CCS because operators will face potentially significant new obligati ons. The rules should broadly permit grandfathering unless the director determin es that a particular site is not suitable for storage based on specific crit eria. The rule also unnecessarily creates a dichotomy between Class II wells and Class VI wells. Class II is only available as long as any production is occurring. This may prevent EOR wells from being transitioned to permanent st orage after EOR ceases or ends. EPA's rules should grant carbon dioxide storag e the same legal status under all well

classes.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides the the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were en gineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the construction requirements are grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical integrity testing, etc.) must be met fo llowing a determination under §146.81(c).

In response to the comment that ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using additional pore space for storage, EPA clarifies that the comment is outside the scope of this

6rulemaking. The purpose of the GS rule is not to in centivize the use of GS or to address the use of pore space, but to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger USDWs.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21372 Letter Lines: 79 to 83

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

Comment: The sixth area of concern re lates to primacy or to st ate primacy for proposed Class VI wells. EPA can accelerate the depl oyment of CCS while allowing states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells w ithout obtaining primacy for the entire UIC program. Numerous states have esta blished their own CCS regulations and their expertise should be relied upon.

Individual 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 th e 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 clim ate change, EPA believes that provi ding states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well cla sses 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 integrat ion of GS activities

under SDWA into a broader framework for mana ging CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeli ne operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorit ies that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more comp rehensive CCS management approach.

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

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstandi ng policy of discouraging "partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Cl ass under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for pa rtial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Cla ss VI wells independent of other well classes provided they devel op regulations that are at leas t as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspec tion, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) 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

7application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and en sure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priori ties and protect USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21373 Letter Lines: 85 to 90

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

Comment: Our final area of concern relates to the Ag ency's comments in the preamble that injected carbon dioxide could be deemed a hazardous waste under RCRA and CERCLA. NACSA believes it is appropriate for geol ogically stored car bon dioxide to be categorically excluded from the definitions of hazardous waste. NACSA urges the Agency to reconsider its positions and the deleterious effect it could have on the development of CCS.

Individual Response: EPA received many comments regardi ng the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 st reams that are geologically seque stered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has deci ded to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues pa rticular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that comment ers who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule. Finall y, EPA also notes that

the final GS rule, which adds ne w regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substan ce under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depends entirely on th e composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or gr ound water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “feder ally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential releases from the we ll which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

8Letter ID: 0533 Commenter: Dag Nummedal Organization: Colorado En ergy Resource Institute

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21477 Letter Lines: 39 to 69

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: What happens when you put CO2 into the subsurface. One is that when you are pumping the large quantities of CO2 that we will be looki ng at, there are formations that will be deformed. They are deformed both by hydrological, by thermal and by chemical disturbances from injected CO2. In turn, this for those who are reading, I am reading the second paragraph, in turn this deformation probably will have a profound effect both on the hydro mechanical and the transport response of the injected fluid itself. And of course, fractures are particularly important in the subsurface because they are already are in the conduit, but they are in the pipeline th at work, that carry fluids through the rocks. So for that reason we do not have focus a lot of research and very little has been done on this yet, to really get an understanding of the distribution properties and response of both the natura l and induced fractures. How do they respond to fluid pressure? To the temper ature changes? To the mineralogical changes? We can both dissolve minerals in the fluid in the subsurface and you can re-precipitate others. This w ill change the injectivity of CO2.

Also many fractures create new fresh surf aces and guess what? When you create a new fresh surface, that surface is typically chemically very reactive, much more

so than an old rock surface that has been weathered on the surface so understanding -- what is called the reactiv e transport modeling in the technical lingo, is basically understanding how the ch emistry over fluid moving past this reactive surfaces. They change the mineral assemblage and in turn start growing crystals or dissolving crysta ls and changing activity.

To this, of course, then in the long run they change the mobility of fluids at least the mobility of CO2 and where it is trapped and how much we are trapping in the subsurface. We are going about this with a combination of flow modeling laboratory work and we are starting the pr oject building on what we believe are the two most advanced numerical modeling codes in the world today developed by a partner in this, and our partners are th e Livermore National Lab in Livermore, California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the Berkeley campus. These labs have

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that injection of large volumes of CO2 into the subsurface poses potential risks associated with fluid movement, deforma tion in the subsurface, and the potential for leakage of CO2 into USDW s, which could result in the mobilization of substances that could pose threats to human health by endangering USDWs.

1The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site characterization, comput ational AoR modeling that accounts for the multiphase flow of CO2 and native fluids, well construction, oper ation, monitoring, postinjection site care, and site cl osure. The mandate of the UIC Program under the SDWA, and the GS rule, is to protect public health by ensu ring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. The GS rule accomplishes this through requirement s tailored to address the unique nature of GS, including the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy and potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and impurities in the CO2 st ream. Many of these requirements specifically address the potential for mobilized substances to affect USDWs.

For example, the owner or operator must submit da ta about the site, including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining zones. Operators must also present informati on on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as specified at §146.82(c)(3). The data can help identify potential geochemical reactions between the injected CO2 and the host geologic formations, which coul d result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation minerals. During injection operations, operato rs must extensively monitor ground water quality to provide early de tection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to addres s any adverse effects a ssociated with the GS operation as specified in §146.94 and provide financial responsibil ity to address contamination as specified in §146.85.

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21478 Letter Lines: 69 to 80

Comment Code: 3340 2.2.1.4 Specific delineation models

Comment: California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the Berkeley campus. These labs have over the last five to ten years develope d some codes called NUFT and Tough-react numerical codes worry about t hose things. That really ha ve advanced our ability as scientists to model ahead of time what will happen to minerals and precipitation and dissolution when this CO 2 charge fluids go through the rocks.

Then the model predictions and the American Model Predictions will then be tested against lab experiments. One of th e things that we are very proud of at

the Colorado School of Mines is how dedi cated the university is to laboratory work. There is only so much you can do in th e area of modeling. You have to test the models in laboratory before you can feel comfortable using the models afterwards to predict what w ould happen in the subsurface.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the range and capab ilities of numerical modeling codes available to GS operato rs and other modelers and acknowledges the comment.

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21479 Letter Lines: 82 to 108

2Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

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

Comment: The last part then gets at the biospher e. A lot of people think I believe that

the subsurface beneath our feet consists mostly of rocks only. It does not. Turns out that we have a very extensive community of microorganisms that go deep down. In the deepest gold mines in South Africa, people are r ecovering microbes. And these microbes play a fundamental role s in the geochemical and radiological

reactions. In fact in all different rocks, whether th ey be hard rocks where we get gold and silver and copper and whatnot , there are organism s related and are present in both deep hard rock mine s, those organisms that are found on

limestones. We can look at that as potentially large car bon sequestration.

Reservoirs contain a lot of bacteria, mi crobes in coal. Coal seams potentially are great places to store CO2 partly b ecause some of the mi crobes will actually use the hydrogen as in the el ectron donor and then reduce the CO2 into methane. And we add hydrogen to the C and the O's and it produces methane and oxygen and water. And then if you can get that reaction to work in commercial and industrial settings in the subsurface, then you can actually use CO2 in the

subsurface, in the coal seams, the same way that we are increasingly using CO2 in algal farms. Algal biofuels which most people are strongly in favor of. Environmentally algal biofuels are proba bly very good and what you do of course, algae have to eat something, they eat CO 2. Now if you can get the microbes in this subsurface, in the coal seams, to do the same thing basically converting that CO2 into methane and regenerate the methane, you can have a sustained production of methane which can be trapped a nd captured and used as it leaves a

much cleaner fuel than coal and oils for a long time while you are storing CO2 in the process. I think it is a ve ry encouraging future technology.

And that will then also be a significan t part of the research that we are attracted, that we are here proposing.

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 ensure protection of USDWs. Th e Agency clarifies that, under SDWA authority, the requirements do not explicitly protect agains t CO2 leakage to the surface. However, the GS rule requires that CO2 injected for GS remain confined in the injection zone. Leakage outside of the injection zone/to the surface would be a permit violation.

In response to the comment suggesting "harne ssing biological activi ty"—such as underground microbes—to consume CO2, the Agency clarifies th at the GS rule does not preclude or endorse the use of specific technologies (e.g., microbes) for GS provided they are used in conjunction with appropriately sited, cons tructed, operated, and monitore d injection wells to ensure protection of USDWs.

3Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21480 Letter Lines: 114 to 146

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment Code: 1960 1.4.4.5 Consultations with NGOs, e.g., environmental and citizens

groups

Comment: But according to your point number seven in the handout for today's meeting, where you talk about EPA has an upstanding history of working with academic community and the national labs to answ er basic science questions and I am delighted to see that and I know that in fact. I have been dealing with EPA for a long time too and I am very pleased that in fact, the labs that you are mentioning are mostly the same ones that we believe are the leadership precision

in this research. You do mention the Lawrence lab. You mention the Pacific Northwest labs you are working through, but not formally in this particular proposal and you have mentioned little mo re, but of course [indecipherable] strength in the carbon sequest ration [indecipherable].

Then you mention the regional carbon seque stration partnerships in Colorado is member of the southwest partnership headed up by Brian McPherson. Started out in New Mexico [indecipherable]. Brian is now at the University of Utah and close friend of all of ours. So I have a very close interaction with that partnership and also the Big Sky partnership in Montan a, in the Great Plains. Now where our research already is different and will continue to di ffer from the partnership is that we are not trying to focus on kind of a regional assessment on what particular methodology works where which is very much part of the partnership

and of course, we need that. But instead we want to sit back and look at a much more fundamental geomechanical, geomicrobi ological and geochemical reactions in the subsurface in any kind of rock and we will limit [indecipherable] submitted if it gets funded. Get samples and data fr om these three partnerships that I

mentioned, so that the research will be tie d to the specific environments in the Rocky Mountains very li kely to store CO2.

So I think that is -- oh I mentioned the Sleipner project which of course is well known. Because Sleipner I attached some CO2 emissions back in 1995 and 1996. I have mailed it and advantage ous for [indecipherable] business perspective start sequestering CO2 and I learned a great deal in the process about it, so becoming a leader provide r on the carbon sequestration expertise and technology. The and I have been working with Stockholm for a long time as you can tell from my accent, I did not grow up in Louisiana, some people think.

Individual Response: While developing the GS regulati on, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seve n regional carbon seques tration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE ) and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and se veral international projects, including Sleipner. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislati on is in the rulemaking docket. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water continues to fund research at the Lawrence

4Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of CO2 interaction on ground water aquifers and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may occur. EPA is communicating with other research organizations and academic in stitutions including, among others, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State University, where specific research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2 monitoring techniques is in progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS , and others to identi fy tools and training techniques that will provide GS permitting assi stance and technical expertise as appropriate. Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking multiple research efforts on GS. Topics of research in clude bolstering different default thermodynamic databases to include more comprehensive info rmation on aqueous complexes and solid-phases

that contain carbonate/bicarbona te and toxic elements for which EPA has a listed MCL (maximum concentration level) for safe drinking water.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to re gulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency will, every six years, 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 determ ine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA agrees that research into GS is important and confirms that, as the commenter notes, the final GS rule was informed by research at LBNL , Pacific Northwest laboratories, the RCSPs, and

international GS research. EPA continues to fund research on GS. As part of its adaptive rulemaking approach, EPA will continue to revi ew available research on fluid movement. The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS project s 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 appr opriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21481 Letter Lines: 148 to 153

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells

Comment: And so I am working very closely with the Norwegian company and other friends back in Norway including being a boar d member on their carbon sequestration company called Gas and Nova so again as pa rt of the research we are about to

undertake, we make sure that all the learnings that are coming out [indecipherable] also are fully available to all the members of our research community.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. While developing the GS regulation,

EPA has evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnershi ps (RCSPs) funded by DOE a nd coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a nd several international projects. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislati on is in the rulemaking

docket.

5Letter ID: 0534 Commenter: George Peridas Organization: Natural Resour ces Defense Council (NRDC)

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21450 Letter Lines: 27 to 34

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

Comment: So I'd like to start with a note and sa y that this is not an attempt to legitimize or to further perpetuate the us e of coal. We believe that there are much better, cheaper, and cleaner ways to meet our energy needs. Nonetheless, there is a very good reason why we do need to have CCS in the mitigation portfolio as well and this is because of the world's vast coal resources, the projected business as usual use of this resource and the pace at which we see climate change evolving. We believe that coal, mainly in China is and climatic changes are on a collision course and we really need to do something about it.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of th e Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. Regul ating the use of coal or any energy form is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulema king. More information on EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Ga ses under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/endangerment.html.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21451 Letter Lines: 36 to 49

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: We believe that the problem of economics and problem with policy can put CCS in context and give it the role that it needs. Nonethele ss, we do not believe that we can do away with this if we are goi ng to meet emission reduction targets in time, so this is what we think is an absolutely necessary part of the mitigation portfolio. We would like to see things ha ppen otherwise; I th ink technically it is feasible. The way that some of the developing economies are growing these days and the way the political situation in the U.S. is heading, means that we

wanted to use CCS as well.

Having spent a good few years studying this and we took great care in being diligent, as an environmental group the id ea of injecting larg e volumes of CO2 underground that is not the most appealing at first. Nonetheless, the more we

studied this, the more convinced we become that if regulated and performed well, it can be very safe and effective. And I stress the words, can be.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including

1energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to redu ce CO2 emissions. EPA cl arifies that the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA believes that large scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. Th e 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 protective requirements include more extensive geol ogic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and period ic re-evaluations, de tailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and ex tended post-injection monitoring and site care.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21452 Letter Lines: 51 to 80

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: I do not agree with the assertion that CCS is unproven, untried or untested. I think there was a good body of experience in related context that gives us

reason to believe that CCS is safe and e ffective. EOR as one of those examples,

I do not claim that EOR is tantamount to CCS. There are key differences.

Nonetheless, there are fields that inject very large volumes of CO2 annually and

in the U.S. and elsewhere. Some of these injections are well above the amount of CO2 that would be injected annually by a large qualified power plant.

We do not have the monitoring provisions in place that we would have with a standard sequestration proj ect. Nonetheless, there are studies that are almost completed that show, and these are going to be published I thi nk within the next few weeks or few months by the University of Texas, that show that there is

indeed no real contamination issue at some of the major UI projects and fields. Even though the objective is not to keep the CO2 down for hundreds of millions of years or thousands of years, nonethele ss we have injected very large volumes of CO2 and the regulatory expe rience in Class II has shown that we have not come across any major contamination issues.

The other I think major and striking exampl e of CCS which is often overlooked is

nature itself. CO2, methane and even H2S, hydrogen sulfide are occurring naturally in the subsurface. The fields that the industry has actually mined contained fairly pure CO2. These large vol ume fields, they have been there and they are testament that CO2 can be stor ed by nature in the subsurface for a very, very long time a nd very effectively.

Oil fields and gas fields and also the deep saline formations also show nature's ability to retain those fluids, so I wo uld urge a close study and consideration of what nature has done already. Just putting a label on a new technique and

2calling it sequestration does not necessa rily mean that it has not been done

before.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDW s from endangerment. EPA agrees that large scale GS can be done safely. The GS regul ation builds upon the l ong-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regul ating 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 natu re of large scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensiv e geologic testing, deta iled computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations , detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressu re front, and extended post-inject ion monitoring and site care.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to th is comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21453 Letter Lines: 82 to 86

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: I believe the time is right to be wri ting a sound regulatory framework on CCS. We need to be getting on with reducing em issions from qualified power plants and

other industrial facilities as soon as we can and I would like to thank and commend EPA for putting together what is I think a very well thought out rule in a very limited amount of time.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21454 Letter Lines: 88 to 96

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process

Comment: As I pointed out, we do have a number of t echnical comments, which of course, if you take them you will make the rule perfect, so we urge you to do that.

We do believe that some revisions are necessary and I would go briefly through some technical points, but the final word on the timing here, there is a trade

3off in my mind between how the rule is wr itten and the need for language to be

revised in the future. I think some are claiming that the large scale injections, some of which might be perfor med by DOE, will be the catalyst or the trigger for major revisions to the rule . I do not think thatis necessary. I

Individual Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is appropriate. The Agency plans to use such an appr oach to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment and meet the potentially fast p ace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an adaptive approach will allow regulatory developmen t to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizi ng the need to: continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available; and to enhanc e understanding of the technical and administrative asp ects of GS deployment, operati on, and technology developments.

EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information a nd appropriate documentation are being collected,

and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21455 Letter Lines: 96 to 98

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

Comment: trigger for major revisions to the rule . I do not think thatis necessary. I mean, it really does depend on how the rule is phrased and to what extent it is flexible and performance based and I th ink if I weigh in that direction.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21456 Letter Lines: 100 to 108

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS

Comment: And secondly, I do have to doubt the capabi lity of these DOE funded projects to provide the ultimate or deciding vote if you like on how to regulate and how to craft the regulatory language. I think there is, there will be some lessons that

will be learned from those. There will be ne w data available. There will be some research that will take place, but ultimate ly I think that this program is too

little, too late and I also do not think th at it is a prerequi site for drafting

4good rules. There might be some need for revision, but the best way to get that experience and to that knowledge is to move ahead with a handful or two of large scale injections and that will be th e best possible learning experience.

Individual Response: The final rule is based on the most recent GS-related data, information,

and scientific research available. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and anal yzing GS project data and permit information from a variety of sources . Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. De partment of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory. EPA believe s that this data forms a solid basis for finalizing the Class VI GS requirements, and ther e is no reason to wait until all phases of the DOE demonstration tests are complete. Neverthele ss, EPA anticipates that future experimental and full-scale projects will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking approach. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data 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.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21457 Letter Lines: 110 to 119

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

USDW

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

USDWs in certain circumstances

Comment: Now on the technical issues, the ones I w ould like to mention briefly without going into detail; I will defer to the co mments about, is the definition of the

area of review. The definition and treatm ent of a fault in the subsurface, I think I will echo some previous comments on whether to inject a bove or below the lowest USDW. The definition of a USDW might change. The TDS level in the future and that is crucial to policy decisions , but we will have to think very carefully of, but I think there are good exam ples of safe CO2 injection that are above the lowest USDW. I am willing to make sure that the emphasis is on having the adequate confinement systems and c onfining layers that protect USDW's whether they are above or below.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that there is increa sing demand for water resources and that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA believes these potential resources should be considered when inje ction depth waivers are sought. Therefore, the final GS rule at §146.95(b) requir es the Director to cons ider these issues in determining whether an injection depth waiver is appropriate. Sp ecifically, the Director must consider whether alternative inje ction sites are availa ble; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and nonUSDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resources or treating USDW formation

waters in the event of contamination rela ted to the Class VI injection activity.

5EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. The GS rule focuse s on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required under the SDWA, by establishing regul ations to ensure the safe in jection of CO2 for long-term

storage.

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

Comment.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21458 Letter Lines: 121 to 130

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

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

Comment: The closure standards I agree with Scott, I do not think that fifty years is arbitrary. I do not think that it is the magic number or that it will be appropriate for every single site. Noneth eless, I think it is a good benchmark, but we do need to have other flexibility to revise this upwards or downwards as project data comes in.

I think what needs a little bit of refine ment is the phrase at the discretion of

the administrator. I think that should be so me more concrete criteria as to when the administrator should reserve the rights to require certain techniques to be used on other requirements in the rule.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director shou ld have discretion to shorten or lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has reta ined this provision in the final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). 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-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropria te if it ensures non- endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the be st position to determine whether additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be shortened), based on the circumstan ces of a particular project. EP A expects this decision to be

made based on relevant site data and in consul tation with all potentially impacted parties.

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

6sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under §146.92 a nd §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator coul d plug injection and m onitoring wells; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/t ype/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. The Agency plans, every six years,

to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether th e appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, a nd to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21459 Letter Lines: 132 to 138

Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types

Comment: I do believe that discretion in some media is, if you like, good to go. And

likewise, I do not believe th at sequestration of the medi a is ready and in that range, in that category, I would include basa lts, coal seems, organic shales and

limestone. I think this should still conti nue any injections and those should continue to be regulated under Class V and I do not think we are ready to move to a wide scale endorsement of CO2 inje ction as a sequestration technique in

those.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that site-suitability for GS is dependent on a number of factors and that many formation types may be suitable for GS. The final GS rule does not preclude injection into any non- USDW formation type provided owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be performed in a ma nner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Agency acknowledges that GS into basalts, coal seams, shales, and limestone formations will likely have limited application, or that owne rs or operators seeking Class VI permits for injection into these formations may not be able to meet the final GS requirements or demonstrate protection of USDWs.

The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protect ion of USDWs, and the ru le includes requirements to ensure that the geologic formations are adeq uate to receive and confine injected CO2, at §146.83. The siting, well constructio n, operational, and other requirements in the GS rule are designed to ensure that injected CO2 remains within the target formation.

7EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associat ed with GS, particularly regarding GS into basalts, which have been the subject of limited e xperimental projects in the past. EPA anticipates

that in the short-term, GS into basalts, co al seams, salt domes, or ganic shales, limestone formations will continue to be experimental in natu re (i.e., if they are to test GS technologies and collect data), and will likely be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells and be subject to UIC Program Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, including those in such formations, to determ ine whether the appropria te amount and types of information and documentation are required and bei ng collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to dete rmine 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.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21460 Letter Lines: 140 to 152

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: And the final technical point which might be somewhat outside the jurisdiction of the EPA, refer to this rulemaking is distinction between enhanced oil recovery and sequestration. This rule d eals exclusively with deep saline

formations and we believe that business as usual enhanced oi l recovery should continue to be regulated as it always has under Class II . Nonetheless, if there are any changes, any significant changes in the over-riding conditions in oil fields where they inject CO2 which might well be the case if people see an economic incentive, to sequester larger amounts of CO2 in those oil fields. Then I believe that then, we will need to ta ke a closer look at how these wells should be regulated and whet her there is a need to re gulate them under Class VI or to grandfather them with other appoi ntments into Class VI and again the

criteria, it should be whether we incur any significant changes in the risk profile of those injection as a result of trying to get more CO2 in there.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 a nd to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. EPA also agrees that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for long term storage is different from Class II CO2 injection for ER, and that tailored requirements for GS wells are appropriate and necessary to protect USDWs from endangerment. For this reason, the Agency tailored UIC requirements for Cl ass VI wells that addr ess the general risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., very large volumes, very long time-periods , and reservoir pressure conditions).

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2.

8The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21461 Letter Lines: 154 to 156

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: I think this concludes my technical points. I think th ere are many good elements in this rule. The proposal of the new in jection class itself is a very good one. The requirements for extensive monitoring is another example. This architectural

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule c ontains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corre ctive action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plu gging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly addre ss issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS. EPA agrees that the testing and monitoring requi rements are an important element of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21462 Letter Lines: 156 to 159

Comment Code: 3700 2.2.5 Comments on the requirement for an AoR and corrective action plan

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

Comment: The requirements for extensive monitoring is another example. Th is architectural design nature of having to continue to update the proposed plans, operational parameters, closure plans, etcetera as modeling data comes in and that is monitoring comes in. I think it is a very sound one which should be maintained

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's s upport of the AoR and corrective action plan, and retains the requi rement in the final regulation §146.84(b). EPA believes that the iterative process by which monitori ng and operational data are used to validate the original AoR calculation, along with the combined knowledge and ongoing dialogue between the owner or operator and the Director on the local geologic co nditions will be critical in developing and implementing plans that protec t USDWs from endangerment.

EPA agrees that monitoring data should be used to review model assumptions, verify computational model projections, and, when nece ssary, provide input for model refinements. As

9data are collected at an injection site, model pa rameters can be adjusted to match observations (i.e., for model calibration or), which in turn impr oves the predictive capabil ity of the model. As a GS project proceeds, both monitoring and modeling will evolve, with monitoring results supporting effective AoR reevaluations and leading to improved model predictions.

EPA believes that developing and fo llowing testing and monitoring pl ans is an important part of assuring that a GS project is ope rating properly and is crucial fo r the early detec tion of potential endangerment to USDWs. EPA also believes that periodic updates to th e plan are appropriate. EPA clarifies that the final GS regulation include s a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every 5 years, and it sp ecifies at §146.90(j) that the oper ator revise the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate the results of the most recen t AoR reevaluation and recent operational and monitoring data.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21463 Letter Lines: 160 to 163

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

Comment: and I do also agree with the performance ba sed closure standard rather than the mere passage of a number of years whic h could be ten, it could be fifty. I really do think that we need to look at what happens in each project rather than saying if you have been through a numb er of years, then it is fine.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there will be circumst ances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to

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

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

comments.

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

10Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21464 Letter Lines: 165 to 170

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: I would like to mention since there is talk of contamin ation of groundwater that

we need to be careful to distinguish risks from hazards . A hazard is something that can potentially go wrong. A risk invol ves the probability of it. What we really need to do is take a good look at which of these hazards are linked to what probabilities and to wh at extent they amount in. I do believe that in the case of sequestration, we can effectiv ely manage a lot of those risks.

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 regulations provides a protective foundation for ensuring protection of USDWs based on successful field experience, and lessons learned about CO2 injection in ot her applications.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21465 Letter Lines: 172 to 190

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process

Comment: Climate change will not wait and I th ink it will have a profound effect on drinking water results itself and I really do believe that USDWG will suffer if we do nothing about climate change. And I th ink sequestration as I said can be

effective.

I would like to end with a note on scale and timing. I do not believe that we are ready to proceed with wide scale de ployment of sequestration all around the country. It is something we saw a hundred permit application as soon as rules promulgated and I do think this is prematur e. We are not ready to move in that

direction. Nonetheless I th ink by the nature of the beast and the current economics of CCS, we will not see that happe n. What we are talking about here is an initial wave and an initial set of projects that would be permitted and then studied intensely. And I think those will inform how we think about sequestration, whether we indeed need or do not need any revisions to the regulations and also how we manage proj ects. I think ultimately if CCS is to deliver on its promise to reduce greenhouse gasses, then yes we will need to

11deploy this at a wide scale. But this is not something that will happen over five years. Some we will scale up to ove rnight. There will be ample time, study

and reassessments.

Individual Response: EPA believes that there is a potential that GS may be deployed at a fast pace (e.g., if climate change legislation provides an incentive for sequestering CO2 or if other climate policies or regulations limit CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prepare for such an event. EPA's adaptive approach to regulati ng CO2 injection for GS will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available and enhance understanding of th e technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21466 Letter Lines: 192 to 198

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

Comment: And I would like to close with one fina l comment. Even if we do write the perfect rule text via its effective impl ementation really does rest on capacity building and funding, not just the federal ag ency 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 pla ce, 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.

Individual 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 acquiri ng 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 th at 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 ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

12Letter ID: 0535

Commenter: Paul Pike Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Acti vities Group (USWAG)

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21432 Letter Lines: 30 to 40

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important undertaking it will have significant, very practical and cost impli cations for the entire power industry. While the challenges and uncertainties asso ciated with the deve lopment of large scale commercial deployment of carbon capture and storag e are significant, the utility industry certainly w ould be at the forefront of these controls. Given the direct impact this program will have on the electric industry, we appreciate EPA's goal of establishing certainty and transparency to the requirements of

Class VI carbon dioxide in jection. It is also cr ucial however for the regulations to reflect the challenges inherent in crafting controls for commercial CO2 injection and storage activit ies when such large scale commercial operations are in the planning stage.

Individual Response: Comments related to challenges indust ry will face in crafting control technology for CO2 injection that are not related to the endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a clim ate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulat ing injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique i ssues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoya ncy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21433 Letter Lines: 42 to 49

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

Comment: The fundamental challenge confronting EPA in this rulemaking is to establish a

cost effective and environm entally sound regulatory program to cover a range of operations for which the technology will not be commercially deployed for a number of years. To meet this challenge and to establish a workable regulatory framework over the coming decades for the long term storage of carbon dioxide, EPA must craft regulations with flexibili ty so that it may be fine tuned as industry and regulations alike gain expe rience with large s cale carbon dioxide sequestration.

1Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs fr om endangerment. Encouraging investment in CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21434 Letter Lines: 51 to 63

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

Comment: Because information related to carbon seque stration is sure to develop, Ameren urges EPA to avoid blanket probations or arbitrary absolutes in the final rule. We agree that the standard underlying protective rule requirements for carbon dioxide sequestration is the protectio n of underground sources of drinking

water. However, because it is difficult to know at this point what future technologies will be developed for injection and long term storage of carbon dioxide in the manner that is protective of these drinking water sources. But because there is, there should be a signif icant demand for the capacity to store this CO2, EPA should not prematurely prec lude injection in certain specific types of sites or through certain methods. The final rule should leave the door open for a range of injection options, s ites and methods, some of which are unrecognized or even unknowable at this poi nt in time provided that the ltimate objective of protecting the underground sources of dri nking water is achieved.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

To address the comment that the rule should accommodate future technological developments related to GS, EPA adds that it is using an ad aptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulat ion, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review project data on GS research projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and

2types of information and appropriate documenta tion are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21435 Letter Lines: 65 to 81

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: Of particular importance is also potential for liability under CERCLA including the natural resources damages cases stemmi ng from injection and sequestration of carbon dioxide. As EPA can surely appreci ate the potential for these opening

liabilities will act as a serious deterrent for would-be owners and operators of these injection wells. Simply put, EPA mu st mitigate the threat of potential CERCLA liability to the extent possible in the rulemaking.

One step that the Agency can take with re spect to CERCLA is to ensure that the Class VI permits have the broadest po ssible reach or meaning protective of drinking waters. To maximize this protect ion offered by the federally permitted release exemption, this would mean incl uding the scope of the permit for carbon dioxide injection, all other CERCLA h azardous constituents likely to be contained in the CO2 stream including t hose generated along with the carbon capture and transport and in the injection zone.

Similarly the scope of the au thorized permit zone should be as broad as possible while remaining protective of drinking water.

Individual Response: CERCLA exempts from liability, un der CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain "federally permitted releases" (FPR ) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Therefore, Class VI requirements and permits will n eed to be carefully structured to ensure that they do not 'authorize' inappropriate releases, and would need to prevent po tential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

Furthermore, EPA is promulgating the GS rule un der the authority of th e SDWA. To the extent the commenter is seeking interpretations of CE RCLA and its related pr ovisions, such as the definition of a federally permitted release, such interpretations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substan ce under CERCLA however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depends entirely on th e composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or gr ound water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain "f ederally permitted releases" as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential releases from the we ll which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

3The UIC program Director has authority under SDWA §1423 to address potential compliance issues (e.g., potential releases that may endanger USDWs) resulting from injection violations in the unlikely event that a remedi al response is necessary. Although EPA anticipates that the need for emergency or remedial actions at GS sites wi ll be rare, the GS rule requires, at §146.94, that emergency and remedial response plans be deve loped and updated to address such events and that owners or operators demonstr ate that financial resources are set aside to implement the plans if necessary, per §146.85.

Regarding long term liability, once an owner or operator has met all regu latory requirements

under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Dire ctor has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operato r will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

Separate from EPA's authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

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

remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SD WA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21436 Letter Lines: 83 to 92

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

Comment: With respect to RCRA, it is premature to conclude that captured injected carbon dioxide is discarded and therefore po ssibly a solid waste under RCRA. Carbon dioxide is a commodity used in a variet y of processes currently and we do not know exactly what methods or mechanisms w ill be created as a re sult to deal with

4CO2. EPA should create an applicable exemption from RCRA under the well established contingent management concep t given that the UIC will ensure that they injected material is not mismanag ed. Such an exclusion will be legally justified, consistent with past promulgation of excluded rules and it would make sound policy since by removing a potentially significant regulato ry barrier to the commercial development of carb on dioxide sequestra tion operations.

Individual Response: EPA received many comments regardi ng the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 st reams that are geologically seque stered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has deci ded to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues pa rticular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that comment ers who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule. Finall y, EPA also notes that

the final GS rule, which adds ne w regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any ch anges to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21437 Letter Lines: 94 to 96

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: The bottom line is that the potential for interaction with CERCLA or liability in RCRA must be mitigated to avoid signi ficant delays in an overall chilling effect on this process.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS rule. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21438 Letter Lines: 98 to 105

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation

Comment Code: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tr ibal, and local A ssociations (e.g., GWPC, IOGCC)

Comment: USWAG recognizes that while there are some measures Agency can take in the regulatory context to addre ss these concerns, those measures may be limited. In the end USWAG also believes that the Agen cy should consider whether legislative solutions will be necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take such action. Because state regulators have worked extensively with permitting the existing injection wells, we believe that we should work with those agencies to

5continue and to have implementation of the Class VI rules by the states would be crucial to the UIC program.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that states should implement the Class VI rule. EPA believes that allowing states to obtain Class VI primacy may encourage them to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integra tion of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore spac e ownership, land use rights, a nd surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level but are out side UIC authority to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. 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 agrees that GS is a key climate change mitig ation technology that is part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifie s that the scope of this GS regulation is limited to underground injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed to ensure protect USDWs from endangerment.

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 (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: 0535 Comment ID: 21439 Letter Lines: 107 to 110

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

Comment: Because of wildly varied characteristic s and limitations of sites and projects, it is important to incorporate performan ce based standards into the final rule waiting for site specific approach to requi rements for site review, reevaluation and post injection site care and closure.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific

6flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21440 Letter Lines: 112 to 116

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

Comment: With respect to EPA's suggestion that fu ture guidance documents be issued to clarify financial responsibilit y, we stress that such guidance must be issued in keeping with OMB's good guidance practi ces bulletin. In addition, it is

essential that the self insurance instru ments remain available to owners and operators as a method of financial assurance for Class VI carbon projects.

Individual Response: EPA will retain the use of self-insurance as an instrument to demonstrate financial responsibility for Class VI wells. EPA is developing guidance that describes the types of financial instruments, including self insuranc e, which owners or opera tors can use to meet financial responsibility requirements for GS we lls. The financial responsibility guidance will

include considerations for Direct ors regarding how to evaluate th e appropriateness of a specific financial responsibility instrument for a specific project. EPA not es that directors may disallow certain instruments. The guidance wi ll be available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

EPA acknowledges that states may not be authorized under state law to allow for self insurance

or other financial instruments. Th erefore, states may prohibit the use of any financial instruments included in the rule, including self insurance, for Class VI wells. See the final rule and preamble

for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

EPA plans to take OMB's Good Guidance Manual in to consideration as financial responsibility guidance is developed. OMB's Good Guidance Manua l establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of signi ficant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21441 Letter Lines: 118 to 122

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: A final rule must not make Class VI permit application process overly burdensome or unrealistic by requiring detailed inform ation that may not be available at

78 the time of the initial ap plication. Instead the fina l rule should allow for submission of updated information regarding Class VI well and its area of review

as that information becomes available.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the unique charact eristics of CO2 injection (e.g., its relative buoyancy, the large volum e that may be injected, or the potential for chemical interaction with the subsurface) warrant the additional information required to be submitted by GS operators under §146.82. EPA disagrees that Directors should be able to waive some of the application requirements. To pr otect USDWs from endangerment, Directors must have all the data they need to make well-informed decisi ons on establishing permit conditions and granting permits.

In response to concerns that some data will not be available until the well has been drilled, EPA acknowledges that not all of the information listed at §146.82 of the proposed regulation will be available at the time the owner or operator de velops the permit application. Based on comments and evaluation of the proposed requirements, EPA re vised this subpart so th at the final regulation specifies separate requirements for information to be submitted for approval with the permit application before well construction, as requi red at §146.82(a), and information to be submitted after the well is constructed yet before injec tion is authorized, as re quired at §146.82(c). Please see the final rule and the discussion of perm itting and geologic site characterization in the preamble for additional information.Letter ID: 0536

Commenter: Olon Plunk Organization: Xcel Energy

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21374 Letter Lines: 48 to 52

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: I am here this morning to speak in support of the important work EPA is undertaking to establish regulations gove rning the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share with you a few of the lessons we have learned as we have studied the feasibility of devel oping an IGCC project with carbon capture.

Individual Response: Comments related to the feasibility of developing IGCC projects not related to preventing endangerm ent of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a clim ate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulat ing injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique i ssues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoya ncy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21375 Letter Lines: 54 to 67

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: First we have learned that carbon sequestr ation is currently one of the most important means by which power companie s can reduce carbon dioxide emissions while still producing reliable and affordable energy from coal.

International studies as well as studies here in this country attest to the importance of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in any strategy to reducing increasing carbon concentr ations in the atmosphere.

Second, working with respected geo-techni cal and reservoir c onsultants to DOE sequestration partnerships and a world re nowned national lab, we learned that geologic storage of CO2 is not only feasible, but actually happening successfully in a number of places around the world. We also discovered there

are viable and even favorable sites to sequester large quantities of CO2 right

here in Colorado.

1Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outs ide the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking.

EPA agrees that large scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. Th e 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 protective requirements include more extensive geol ogic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and period ic re-evaluations, de tailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and ex tended post-injection monitoring and site care. For additional informa tion on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21376 Letter Lines: 69 to 95

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment: Finally and most relevant to today's discussion we learned that permanent storage of CO2 can be done safely and wit hout harm to the environment as long as we apply the right knowledge base, detailed site specific information, technical expertise and sound management practices. This is where EPA's proposed regulations for geologic storage of CO2 co me into the picture. Because as we went forward with our investigations ove r the last years, we also came to understand something that caused us as much concern in terms of our IGCC project. We came to understand that gove rnment regulation and oversight of underground sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty. Nobody knew exactly who had authority over what and wh at requirements might apply to a clean coal power plant project th at included geologic sequestra tion. We realized that this regulatory uncertainty in time create d major uncertainties for our project with regard to getting ne cessary environmental and ot her approvals in a timely fashion. With regard to obtaining insuran ce and financial assurances needed to manage project risk and liability and with regard to establishing confidence and community acceptance of the project.

In short we came to understand the regulat ory situation created an environment of uncertainty in which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a billion dollars could not responsibly pr oceed. This is why I am here this morning to speak in favor of what EPA is doing to address a critical element in our national response to climate change and why I think the real world experience Excel Energy has gained in Co lorado would be of value in this rulemaking process. The company will join other electric utilities in submitting detailed written comments we hope will lay groundwork for a program that will be protective, but practical and provide the certainty needed to make carbon sequestration a viable near term clim ate mitigation option for the industry.

2Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is impo rtant to establishing a foundation for further advances in the field of CO2 GS. EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory certaint y: the final GS requirements provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirement s for GS. These requirements

include: the tailored AoR delin eation process at §146.84, the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects at §146.90), and the post-injection site care process at §146.93). For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule. To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to dete rmine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requiremen ts are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to pr oceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other

research as it becomes available.

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21377 Letter Lines: 97 to 104

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: In the meantime, I would like to offer some general observations. Having been through this effort to locate and pr ove up the acceptability of a CO2 sequestration site for a large commerci al scale project, Excel believes the topics EPA would require permit applicant to address in its proposed rules are appropriate and important. For example, we believe the best technical expertise should be brought to bear in the first studying and then submitting documentation concerning site and fo rmation geology, hydro-geology, faults, fractures, injectivity, ex isting wells and so on.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees on the importance of the required permit information set in §146.82. EPA be lieves that the extensive requirements for geologic site characterization at §146.82 are appropriate to ensure that permitting authorities

3have the necessary information to evaluate whethe r a specific site will allow safe injection of

CO2.

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21378 Letter Lines: 106 to 117

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment Code: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 146.86)

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operat ing Requirements (40 CFR 146.88)

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

Comment: We believe there must be suitable CO2 inje ction plans backed by seismic surveys, multi dimensional modeling simulations and formation testing.

We recognize the overriding importance of well design and construction that assures well integrity. We believe there must be a sound operations management program including appropriate monitori ng and corrective actions that are prepared and implemented by experts in the field.

We recognize both the local and national interest in providi ng effective post injection site care and closure and demonstrating adequate financial responsibility for these ac tivities. While agreeing with supporting all of these important program elements, I would lik e to add a few words of caution.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. The GS requirements are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment by requiring that injection wells are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and plug ged in a manner that does not endanger USDWs. Appropriately designed an d constructed wells ar e necessary to prevent endangerment to USDWs and maintain integrity of the well throughout the lifetime of a GS proj ect. This is the foundation of the requirements for construction and pre-ope rational testing of Class VI wells at §§146.86 and 146.87.

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendations charac terizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. EP A expects that this guidance will assist permit writers in evaluating this information. Th e guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendations charac terizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. EP A expects that this guidance will assist permit writers in evaluating this information. Th e guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

4Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21379 Letter Lines: 119 to 149

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

Comment: If we as a nation want CO2 sequestration to become a viable and near term option for dealing with carbon emissions, we cannot make obtaining approval for sequestration projects so difficult, tim e consuming or expensive that it recreates the very barrier that the l ack of clear regulatory requirements presented in the first place. We cannot implement an effective regulatory program for sequestering CO2 if the rule s are based on the erroneous premise that CO2 represents an extreme hazard. It is important in these rules that we send the right message to the public about the nature of the CO2 gas we are dealing with.

It is likewise critical in these new ru les that we strike the right balance between addressing realistic risks associat ed with storing CO2 versus creating a regime that effectively hinders rather th an facilitates a key climate mitigation

strategy.

We know that more and larger sequestra tion demonstration projects should be funded and undertaken. We agr ee that careful monitoring of well integrity, plume migration and the like is necessary. On the other hand, we already have decades of experience in the underground injection of CO2 and other much more hazardous materials. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent doing measurements and monitoring studies at large sequestration projects like Weyburn and Sleipner and DOE is in the process of spending many millions more on projects sponsored by the various regional seques tration partnerships.

Other countries are doing their own seque stration demonstrations and related research. The real goal is to strike a reasonable balance between how much is required and would have to be spent in the way of well and ground water monitoring, plume tracking and all the rest versus the le vel of risk presented by a given project. Considering what we have already learned about the characteristics of CO2 geologic storage a nd the effecticy of various monitoring and management practices.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and ha ve other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential co rrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expect s 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.

5EPA also disagrees that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS. The Agency believes that a demonstration to th e public that GS projects are meeting the GS rule's tailored requirements would likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and concerns.

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote CCS; rather, th e purpose of the rule is to ensure that, where deployed, GS perfor med in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21380 Letter Lines: 151 to 154

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: I want to close by reiterating Excel Ener gy's strong support for the expeditious adoption of affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon sequestration and give our company, our industry and our nation a powerful tool in reducing CO2 emissions. And thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

6Letter ID: 0537 Commenter: Talib Syed

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21470 Letter Lines: 23 to 34

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 CFR 146.84)

Comment: I just want to give a few minor, just hi ghlight maybe two or three points that in my opinion are important. The first thing is I think we have to pay a little bit of attention to just transposing the area of review concept that they used to with the UIC program to the CO2 ge ologic sequestration program. And the reason is, it is not in my opinion, the same concept that we had when we were disposing of water, etcetera. So we have got buoyancy affects to regard to take into consideration and that may be a bigger impact n what the zone of endangering influence is. And I believe that has not been taken into consideration at all and just transposi ng the zone of endangering influence as

we are used to with the water etcetera in the UIC program, wit hout incorporating buoyancy affects, that is an issue that n eeds to be very carefully taken into

consideration.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the buoyancy of CO2 must be accounted for in delineating the AoR for GS projects. Buoyancy is one of the characteristics of CO2 injected for GS that served as a catalyst for the devel opment of tailored UIC requirements for GS. The Agency clarifies that employing multiphase com putational modeling to determine the AoR as required at 146.84(c) will result in a more accurate prediction of the fate of CO2 and changes in formation pressure. Computational models used to delineate the AoR must consider the buoyant nature and specific properties of separate phases of the injected CO2 and native fluids within the injection zone.

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21471 Letter Lines: 36 to 45

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

Comment: That leads me to mechanical integrity. The integrity, the mechanical integrity is going to be a critical component. I believe right around the well hole in the casing and the type of cements that you use and the potential for flow on the backside due to back flow etcetera becomes critical. So I am not ruling out, you know, transitioning or using EOR type we lls for geosequestration, but you have got to be careful on looking at those we lls and just not saying, okay, I have got these wells, they are for EOR purposes and I am just going to straight away transition them for geosequestration. If you've got a custom designed well, that is the way I would go, but I would not ru le out using Class II EOR wells, but pay a lot of close attention to it.

1Individual Response: EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, particularly given that the convert ed well will be used for a substa ntially different process, which involves increased reservoir pre ssures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. Th e final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS rule that owners or operators seeking to c onvert existing wells for long term storage must demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathe red wells were engineered and constructed meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure prot ection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). Following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects must be subject to the operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, a nd post-injection site care and site closure requirements in the final GS rule . See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements.

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21472 Letter Lines: 47 to 72

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment)

Comment: The requirement that you cement a continuous column of cement for the long string casing again, could be a potential problem. For in stance, if you got mud in the bore hole, say you know, a te n pounds per gallon mud and you are displacing cement of fourteen pounds pe r gallon, then you may unintentionally fracture some deep formations behind th e well hole and what you have done is you have damaged the integrity of the well hol e and your primary objective in every instance is to make sure that the integr ity of the well is the most critical

component.

Many times what happens is that we are looking at it from an environmental perspective, we will look at all envi ronmental considerations, but safety, safety becomes you know, a critical com ponent that would trump environmental

considerations. That does not mean that e nvironmental considerations have to be set aside. Look at that too, but safety will always trump environmental considerations, so if you've got unintende d fracturing of the formations of big formations, what have you done? In effect , you have lowered the integrity which was your primary objective to begin with because you want to make sure that you have got the integrity of the well hole. So you know, so in some cases yeah go

ahead and do it, but do not mandate it in that okay in every instance, you have

to have a continuous column of cement. So that ties in with the integrity because always keep in mind, what is -- how can I maintain the integrity of my well hole throughout the life of the project? Because in EOR applications you know, you are talking about maybe ten million, fifty million, hundred million cubic feet per day of inje ction, but here you are talk ing about an exponential manifold increase for geosequestration pur poses. You are talki ng about gigatons

etcetera.

Individual Response: EPA believes that current cementi ng technology can address deep well

2cement columns or low-pressure bottom-of-hol e formations. The oil and gas industry has experience drilling and cementing wells in very deep formations and in formations with low pressures. Less dense, lighter weight cement slur ries that include nitroge n foam or lightweight microspheres (Sabins 2002; Kulakofsky et al. 20 05) are used to prevent breakdown of the low pressure formation and loss of circulation. Another way to approach low formation pressure conditions is with reverse cementing (pumping the cement into the annulus and returning it through the casing). This method uses gravity to place the cement and bypass lost circulation zones. Reverse cementing can be combined with other methods such as foam cement. Ten

successful reverse-cemented wells have been completed in a variety of onshore/offshore environments (Chase 2008).

EPA believes that the construc tion requirements at §146.86 offer fl exibility to the owner or operator to propose well construction procedures that are appropriate to the site-specific conditions of the project. Secti on 146.86(b)(3) requires that the long-string casing extend to the injection zone and be cemented by circulating ce ment to the surface in one or more stages. It does not, however, specify how cementing should be accomplished, and gives flexibility to the owner or operator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount of cement to meet the standard that USDWs are pr otected from endangerment, s ubject to the approval of the

Director. EPA notes that there ar e many potential ways to meet the requirement, such as the use of staged cementing.

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EP A 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: 0537 Comment ID: 21473 Letter Lines: 74 to 77

Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment)

Comment: The next point I would like to make is we have not considered horizontal wells. In the rules that were, the proposed rule s I have not seen anything on, as far

as horizontal wells. Are horizontal wells going to be used for completion of geosequestration wells and how does that play into the matrix?

Individual Response: In this final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appr opriateness of horizontal drilling techniques

for Class VI wells, and commenters representing energy companies, el ectric utilities, the oil and gas industry, CCS associations, states, and the public, unanimously suppo rted the concept and provided many reasons why horizonta l wells could be beneficial at GS sites. Based on an evaluation of these comments and additional research by EPA, the Agency has concluded that horizontal wells that are properly constructed, logged, and tested for mechanical integrity (i.e., to meet the requirements of the GS rule) can ensu re the protection of USDW s from endangerment.

3Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21474 Letter Lines: 79 to 89

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth

Comment Code: 4400 2.4.4.3 Allowing injection above or between USDWs (seeking comment)

Comment: Another item that I would like to bring to you know, to be considered is the depth of the lower most USDW. Yes in an ideal world, you want to have your injection zone below your lower most USDW, but what happens if you have USDW say at 20,000 feet? Nobody is using that USDW for practical purposes. You are not going to go and drill a water well 20,000 feet deep in order to supply a community, but at the same time it meet s the criteria of le ss than 10,000 TDS. So there should be some flexibility on a case by case basis. Either if it is economically not feasible or it is technol ogically not feasible just as we have an aquifer exemption process or you know, for the Class II program. But I do prefer as a starting point that you use a zone that is you know, deeper than your lower most USDW, but not in ever y instance as mandatory requirement.

Individual Response: EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaki ng. The GS rule focuses on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required under the SDWA, by establishing regulations to ensure the safe injection of CO2 for long-term storage.

EPA recognizes that there is increasing demand for water re sources and that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA believes these potential resources should be c onsidered when injection depth wa ivers are sought. Therefore, the final GS rule at §146.95(b) requires the Director to consider thes e issues in determining whether an injection depth waiver is appropriate. Spec ifically, the Director must consider whether alternative injection si tes are available; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and non-USDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resour ces or treating USDW formation waters in the

event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. For additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to

comments on the Notice of Data Availa bility and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21475 Letter Lines: 91 to 102

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: One other concern that I have is of you know, again the safety of underground water sources. So the design of the well and the operation because when, when you are dealing with CO2, it is very impor tant that you be aware of the phase

behavior of CO2. We are all aware that CO2 could be in a liquid phase, in a supercritical gaseous phase , it could be a supercr itical gas or a solid, etcetera and that is why th e critical temperature, crit ical pressure comes in. So a requirement that you always operate at a certain depth where you are above the critical temperature, you are above th e critical pressure becomes important

4because otherwise you are going to have uni ntended consequences. Particularly what you have got to watch out for is a catastrophic release. Small releases, okay you can manage it, but if you have got a catastrophic release, then everything you know, comes to naught.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that all phases of CO2 must be considered in determining the suitability of GS projects. Under §146.84, the ow ner or operator must delineate the area of review for Class VI wells using computati onal modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of all phases of the inje cted CO2 stream. Modeling must be based on available site characterization, monitoring, and oper ational data. The definition of the AoR in the proposed rule accounted for the varying physical and chemical properties of the CO2 including free-phase and water-dissolved CO2.

GS takes place thousands of feet below the Ea rth’s surface within porous 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 will escape from a GS site that is properly sited, operated, monitored, and closed. During th e site selection proce ss under §146.83, operators of Class VI wells identify and evaluate the a ppropriateness of a site for GS of CO2. The

evaluation includes the identificatio n of surface and subsurface features such as deep stratified lakes and other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthermore, during GS operation, injection pressures and formation conditions are monitored to avoid overpressuring the storage formation.

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21476 Letter Lines: 104 to 119

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: So that is about it. I th ink you are headed in the ri ght direction, but we've got to be careful on, you know, we are going to learn as we go along. We have got a lot of experience that EOR, 70% of the current CO2 injections are the Permian Basin in west Texas. Okay. We st arted CO2 flooding in west Texas in you know, in the `50's so we have got a lo t of information on how to design the wells, what the problems are, but for geosequestration where you are just, you know, storing it in deep seated aquifers, you have got to be careful with the wells. You have got to be careful about you know, the reaction of the tubulars, the reaction on the cement. Again for EOR, if you got a cement like, let us say a problematic cement, that is not going to be effective in pr eventing flow. It has to be modified and there are now new cements that are coming in for specifically designed for CO2 purposes. So these types of cements may be effective again, but again we have got to watch out for each case and not just a sealed okay if it is ther e because KBR and Halliburton and all the other service companies are coming up with new cement specifically designed for making sure that in every instance you have got that area covered. Okay?

56 Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the requirement at §146.86(b)(5) is that cement and cement additives must be compatible with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life of the GS project. EPA believes

that the use of acid-resistant ceme nts is one of several protective measures for meeting that Class VI well construction requirement, along with th e requirements for surfac e casing and long-string casing and well tubulars that are compatible with the CO2 and formation fluids. See the

discussion of Class VI well constr uction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for

additional information.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of e xperience injecting CO2 for the purpose of enhanced recovery, and that this practice has led to th e development of many corrosion mitigation measures that would be appropriate for the design of Class VI wells. The rule does not specify materials to be used; rath er, it provides owners or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in Class VI we lls are compatible with fluids with which they may come into contact and meet or exceed standards developed for such materials by API or ASTM Intern ational, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as provided at §146.86(b)(1).

The Agency plans to, every six years, 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 modificatio ns to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.