This comment letter response contains two parts:

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

Notes about the response letters:

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

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

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

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

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

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

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

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

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

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

appropriately addressed.

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

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

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

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

construction requirements).

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

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

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

commenter was given a unique response.

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

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response, compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

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

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

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

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.melinda.s.winkler@exx

onmobil.com

12/24/2008 10:18 AM To OW-Docket@EPA

cc assem.akram@epa.com

bcc

Subject ExxonMobil Comment on Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW2008-0390

SENT ON BEHALF OF K.J. MILLER

(See attached file: ExxonMobil Comments Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390.pdf)

K. J. (Ken) Miller Upstream Safety, Health and Environment Manager ExxonMobil Production Company Safety, Health and Environment

P. O. Box 2180, Houston, TX 77252-2180 800 Bell, Suite 4291 (CORP-EMB-4291A), Houston, TX 77002-7426
(713) 656-9704; fax (713) 656-6594 E-mail: ken.j.miller@exxonmobil.com

NOBODY GETS HURT! Protect tomorrow. Today. Security is everybody's

business.liuonMobil Produe,lon CompO"J PO B<m ,.'to

I .I'

December 19. 2008

Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 

### 2822T



### 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20460

Docket 10 Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-Q390**Kon~.** Millo. 'M_

1iO

....**_~**



# EJf<.onMobii

Productioll

To Whom It May Concern:

ExxonMobil Prooudion Company (a DiviSIOn of ElOOJfl**Mob~** 

### Corporation) appreciates

the opportumty 

### to SUbmIt comments on the EnVIronmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
proposed roles for GeologIC Storage of Carbon Dioxide (GS) under 

### the safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) UndergrOUnd Inje<;1lOn Control Program. Exxon Mobil Corporabon is

a fully integrated oil and gas company with workl-wide operations. EKxon Mobil
Corporation has SlQmficant experience In operations directly related 10 geologic storage

such as carbon dlO)ode**(CO~)** based enhanced oil recovery (EOR), separation of**CO~** from natural gas streams. acid gas injection, geologic imaging and modeling, injection

well integrity management. as well as an industry leading research and development

program which Includes carbon management technologies,

ExxonMobil would like to compliment the EPA on the open and transparent process lhey have followed in developing lhese draft rules.

ExxonMobil has participated elCtensively in the preparation of the comments submitlecl
by the American Petroleum Institute (API) on this proposed rule and endorses their

comments. We share the concerns raised by the API in their comments. 

### SpecifIC

concerns are with use of 

### the Class I UIC (IndustnallHazardous Waste) program as the

basiS for the proposed 1\I1es, the proposed prohibition of injCCIlOO above the lowermost
underground source of drinking water. and the proposed 

### 50 year post closure
monrtoling period. In each of these cases, the EPA has oot fuly leveraged on industry's

successful experience WIth the Class II EOR program and instead, by building on the

Class I program. is proposing requirements that are overly restrictive and could have a significant chilling effect on Ihe commercial scale implementatIOn 01 GS. IllS our position Ihat ExxonMobirs and industry's experience with C02 based EOR provides a

sound baSIS from which to form an environmentally sound regulatOf)' frameworK for GS.Environmental Protec!JOn Agency Page 2 December 

### 19, 2008



### As EPA correctly notes 10 the preamble of this rule, several key areas remain 10 be

addressed that are beyond the EPA's authority under the SOWA before commercial

scale carbon capture and storage will 

### occur. Examples of these areas indude

management of long 

### lerm respoosibihty for storage sites, monetization of 

### CO 2 in a 

### way
lhat does not adversely affect 

### economic development and prospenty, publIC education

and awareness, and development of balanced property rights alld access principles.

In conclusion, EltltonMobil is committed to working with the EPA individually and through the API and other groups to develop scientifically sound. performance based regUlations for the geologic storage of 

### C02. Each of the areas of concern we have

identified are more fUlly addressed in API's comments.

Sincerely, 

# /'fi {iv'13='< / 

# .h

KJM:mswLetter ID: 0257

Commenter: Ken Miller Organization: ExxonMobil Production Company

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22369 Letter Lines: 76 to 88

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

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

Comment: ExxonMobil has participated extensively in the preparation of the comments submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) on this proposed rule and

endorses their comments. We share the c oncerns raised by the API in their comments. Specific concerns are with use of the Class I UIC (Industrial/Hazardous Waste) program as the basis for the propos ed rules, the proposed prohibition of injection above the lowermost underground source of drinking water, and the proposed 50 year post closure monitoring period. In each of these cases, the EPA has not fully leveraged on industry's successful experience with the Class II EOR program and instead, by building on th e Class I program, is proposing requirements that are overly restrictive and could have a significant chilling effect on the commercial scale implementa tion of GS. It is our position Ihat ExxonMobil's and industry's experience with CO2 based EOR provides a sound basis

from which to form an environmenta lly sound regulatory framework for GS.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regula tion is overly restrictive. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO 2 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 corrosivity 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.

While EPA recognizes that industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for ER, EPA believes that injection for the primary purpose of l ong term storage is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations and warra nts tailored requirements. Fo r 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 also be different, with Cla ss VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Class II ER projects.

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.

1Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22370 Letter Lines: 90 to 96

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: As EPA correctly notes in the preamble of this rule, several key areas remain to be addressed that are beyond the EPA' s authority under the SDWA before commercial scale carbon capture and storage will occur. Examples of these areas indude management of long lerm responsibih ty for storage sites, monetization of CO2 in a way that does not adversely aff ect economic development and prospenty, public education and awareness, and devel opment of balanced property rights and access principles.

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. Es tablishing a price for carbon and property rights

issues are outside of th e scope of the GS rule.

EPA recognizes the importance of providing cl ear, flexible, scalable, and appropriate regulations. EPA believes that th e GS regulation will provide certa inty to industry and the public by providing consistency in requirements acr oss the U.S. and transparency about what requirements apply to owners or operators.

EPA notes that long-term liabil ity is outside of the scope of the GS rulemaking and is not

addressed in the GS rule. SDWA does not contai n any express provisions addressing liability. An owner or operator will be held liable for any permit violations under SDWA §1423.

Under the final GS rule, once an owner or ope rator has met all regulatory requirements under

Part 146 for Class VI wells and th e Director has approved site cl osure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, thei r financial instrument as required under §146.85
will be released if it was not used. However, ev en if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for re gulatory noncompliance (inc luding violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even after site clos ure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided 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

2a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other
remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility for Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22371 Letter Lines: 98 to 101

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: In conclusion, ExxonMobil is committed to working with the EPA individually and through the API and other groups to develop scientifically sound, performance based regulations for the geol ogic storage of C02. E ach of the areas

of concern we have identified are more fully addressed in API's comments.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment and API’s comment fo r further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the fi nal rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking

docket.

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 24729 Letter Lines: 59 to 74

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: To Whom It May Concern:

ExxonMobil Production Company (a Division of ExxonMobil Cor poration) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the E nvironmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rules for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (GS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground In jection Control Program. Exxon Mobil Corporation is a fully integrated oil and gas company with world-wide operations. Exxon Mobil Corporation has significant expe rience in operations directly related to geologic storage such as carbon dioxide (CO2) based enhanced oil recovery (EOR), separation of CO2 from natural ga s streams, acid gas injection, geologic imaging and modeling, injection well in tegrity management, as well as an industry leading research and developm ent program which includes carbon management technologies.

ExxonMobil would like to compliment the EP A on the open and tran sparent process

34 they have followed in deve loping these draft rules.

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.