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.TESTI MONY OF EDISON ELECTRI C INSTITUTE
Karl R. Moor, Southern Company

EPA’s UI C Proposed Regulations for Geologic Storage of CO 2 – Public Hearing
September 30, 2008
Chicago, I llinois

Introduction
Good (morning/aft ern oon). My name is Karl R. Moor , and I am Vice President and Associate

General Counsel of Southern Company
, one of the largest producers of electricity in the country
, serving nearl y 4.4 million customers in the southeastern United States

. I am pleased to say that
Southern Company already ha s beg u n to assess geologic storage opportunities in the Southeast
and will begin injecting carbon dioxide into a deep saline

- filled geologic formation at our Plant

Daniel in Mississippi next week . This demonstration project at Plant Daniel is the product of the
collaborative efforts of the Department of Energy , E lectric Power R esearch I nstitute and the

S outhern States Energy Board
, and is under the auspices of the Southeast Carbon Sequestration
Regional Partnership. Southern Company supports carbon captur e and storage as a critical tool
in addressing greenhouse gases and is proud of our efforts to bring this important technology

to ward commercial viability

.

I am here today representing the Edison Electric Institute

. EEI is the national trade association

of U.S. shareholder

- owned electric companies. EEI’s members serve 95 percent of the ultimate

customers in the shareholder

- owned segment of the industry and represent about 70 percent of2

the U.S. electric power industry

. I am the c hairman of EEI’s Carbon Capture and Storage Work
Group, which is comprised of member com panies who are committed to exploring CCS as an
option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

.

I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for this opportunity to discuss its

pro posed Underground Injection Control regulation s for geologic storage of carbon dioxide

. EEI

and its members participated in EPA’s public workshops on carbon storage in December 2007
and February 2008. Here, as at the workshops, EEI appreciates the Agency ’s willingness to
consider the expertise and experience our membership can provide with regard to the regulation
of carbon dioxide injection and geologic storage. We are committed to continuing dialog with
all stakeholders to ensure that the final rule pr otects underground sources of drinking water while
creating a clear and flexible regulatory scheme that encourages further de velopment and
deploy ment of carbon capture and storage

.

First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. Electricity
generation produces 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide

emissions in the United States. The Energy Information Administration projects net electric

demand will increase 30 percent b y 2030, even aft er taking into account energy

- efficiency
improvement s

. New and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is
projected to total 150,000 mega W atts. Coal is one of t he primary sources of baseload generation

in the U nited S tates and will continue to be an important fuel for generating electricit y t hrough

2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abun dant in th is country . Given this backdrop,

t he potential environmental benefits of carbon capture and storage

– in terms of avoided c arbon3

dioxide emissions

– are substantial. Consequently, EEI and its members see carbon capture and

storage a s a cr itical element in the full portfolio of options needed not only to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions , but also to ensure continued affordable and relia ble electric service to

customers throughout the United States

.

Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. We are here
today to learn as well a s to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern Company and American

Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with pilot and demonstration projects
involving site characterization, permitting, monitoring and verification
, and understanding
storage capacit y and integrit y . O ur testimony today is informed by what we have alread y l earned
from these projects. Our goal at th e s e hearing s

– and throughout this process

– is to use this
experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are part

of a clear and flexible regulatory regim e that will facilitate the development of, and investment

in, carbon capture and storage technology and projects.

As EPA noted in the Preamble to the proposed regulations, its goal is to create a regulatory
framework that “supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology .”

EPA’ s regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving
carbon capture and storage closer to reality

. EEI and its members applaud EPA for t aking this

step , and encourage EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the
regulations

.4

EEI and its members intend to submit detailed written comments on the proposed regulations,
but today I would like to highlight several initial areas for EPA consideration.

Key Messages

W e have two key messages for EPA today :

· First, the regulations can and should promote the development and deplo ym ent of carbon
capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without
unduly stigmatizing carbon di oxide injection and storage

. Carbon dioxide has been
injected for years for enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery without inci dent.

· Second
, the regulations should be sufficientl y flexible to take into consideration site

specific characteristics and performance

- based measures
, and should be sufficientl y
adaptable to incorporate lessons learned from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects

.

Let me elaborate on each of these point s :

· EEI urges EPA to work to ensure the regulations do not stigmatize carbon geologic

storage, which w ould create public confusion and hamper development of a critical

carbon reduction technology

.

As I noted, EPA has recognized that it has two goals for the proposed rules for geologic storage

of carbon dioxide: the protect ion of underground sources of drinking water and the promotion of
carbon capture and storage . EEI urges EPA to keep both of these goals in mind and to work to
ensure that the regulatory regime that is ultimately adopted is designed to facilitate

– not del ay or
discourage

– the successful commercial

- scale development of carbon capture and storage . The5

potential emissions benefits of commercial

- scale carbon storage are too large and too important
to ignore in the context of these regulations.

While our wri tten comments will discuss some of the specific way s that the proposed regulations

can support the development of appropriate ly sited storage projects, I would also like to bring to

yo ur attention today the importance of creating an accurate public percept ion of the risks and

rewards of carbon geologic storage

.

In its laudable efforts to protect sources of drinking water

– an important goal, as we all agree

–

EPA has inadvertentl y s tigmatized carbon dioxide injection and storage. In reviewing the

p ropos al
, EEI and its members became very concerned that the proposed regulations repeatedl y

mischaracteri zed the possible risk s posed by carbon dioxide injection and storage

.

I ndeed, while carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and is, in fact, found in the ambient air in
abundance, the proposed rules for CO 2 storage are, in many way s, strict er than those for
underground injection of hazardous wastes under Class I of the UIC program . M any of the

construction , mechanical integrit y, monitoring and financial as surance provisions for Class VI

wells are more comprehensive and more strict t han those for Class I wells.

However, c arbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and does not warrant treatment akin to or
more stringent tha n given to hazardous waste s . The inc reased regulatory burden placed on Class

VI wells b y t he proposed regulation is of concern to EEI and its members, who are potential6

owners and operators of CCS projects . W e are also concerned that by imposing such stringent

measures EPA would be unduly s tigmatizing carbon geologic storage.

Our industry knows first

- hand the importance of accurate public perceptions when it comes to

the siting and permitting of needed infrastructure expansions or improvements. I n the p reamble
to its proposal , EPA finds that the public should participate in the permitting process for carbon

dioxide storage projects . Today we ask EPA to ensure that the public full y understands that it is
very unlikely carbon geologic storage projects will harm underground sources of drin king water

or human health
, so that its participation in the permitting process is appropriately informed

. EPA can help create accurate public perceptions about carbon capture and storage by retooling
the proposed regulations to tie requirements to actual risks more closel y . In addition, EPA

should remove elements that serve onl y t o fan the flames of fear without offering increased
protection to underground sources of drinking water.

For example , requiring a secondary containment field w ould create the w rong impression about

the safet y of carbon capture and storage, and should not be part of the final rule

. Such a
requirement is unprecedented in the UI C program, even for storage of hazardous wastes in Class
I wells. Secondary containment fields are also unprecedented internationally : C ountries where
carbon capture and storage projects are currentl y underwa y

— including Norway , Canada,
Australia and Algeria

— do not require additional containment zones
, and in fact, those countries
regulate CCS using ex isting petroleum l aws. Singling out carbon capture and storage for this
heightened and substantially more rigorous requirement would suggest to the public that EPA
thinks geologic storage of carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of7

other substance s. Since EPA is the a gency charged with protecting the environment, the public

c ould be easil y sway ed by EPA’s apparent apprehension of carbon capture and storage as

currentl y embodied in the proposed regulations. In order to create a regulatory scheme that

fosters carbon capture and storage development and deploy ment, EPA should reconsider how it

has characterized carbon dioxide injection

– both explicitly and implicitly

– in its final
regulations.

Moreover, EPA should consider the ef fect of these regulations on securing critical financial
backing for CCS projects. M isperceptions about risk will also influence financial institutions.

The recent turmoil in the financial markets h ighlight s how challenging financing of new
technologies may become. In a credit

- constrained world, investors will be wary of putting their

limited funds behind carbon capture and storage projects if they believe they are likel y t o
endanger sources of drinking water or human health. As with public acceptance, EPA can shape
carbon capture and storage as a tool for reducing carbon emissions b y t he messages that it sends
the financial world with its regulations.

Similarly , EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon

di oxide leaks. Not only are tracers relativel y untested when it comes to their ability to monitor

such leaks

– and, in fact, the best tracer for monitoring carbon dioxide leaks would be CO 2 itself

– but they also will not transmit information sufficiently e arl y t o provide any sort of real
protection to underground sources of drinking water. Soil flux monitoring is problematic
because it can result in false positives based on natural variabilit y i n the earth flux rate. What

th e s e requirement s w ould do, howe ver, is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is8

unsafe because it might be leaking CO 2 , despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of

carbo n dioxide retained in appropriatel y s ited storage sites is very likel y t o exceed 99 percent

over 100 years.

EEI and its members urge EPA encourage ment of carbon capture and storage to be reflected in
the final regulations
, and recommend that the final r egulations serve this purpose by
appropriatel y characterizing carbon dioxide and its risks. The final regulations should be
carefully crafted, therefore, to avoid creating a public stigma around this critical GHG emissions
control technology

.

Our second message for EPA today addres s es the importance of regulatory flexibility

.

· Regulatory flexibility is essential for carbon capture and storage projects

. EEI

cautions against overly prescriptive, one - size fits all regulations because they add

costs without ensuring greater protection to underground sources of drinking water

.

Because no two geologic formations are the same, no two CCS projec ts will be the same. The
geologic framework i n t he selected injection formation

— including, but not limited to
,

ge ometry , depth, composition, confining strata
, and the number and location of existing wells in

the Area of Review

— will all affect how and whether a project moves forward . EPA alread y
recognize s that each storage project will be unique : U nder the propos ed regulations, a potentia l
owner or operator of a project will be required to present detailed information in its permit
application that is specific to the geologic formation chosen for storage and the surrounding area,9

both above and below the surface

. Based on the site

- specific information presented, the UI C

program director will decide whether to issue a permit.

Consistent with EPA’s approach to permitting, the portions of the proposed regulations that
address inherently site

- specific issues should allow for site

- specific determinations

. T yi ng
regulatory requirements to site

- specific characteristics not only will ensure that properl y sited
projects are able to secure the approvals and financing needed to move forward, but also will
prevent the impo sition of unnecessary and expensive requirements that could render some
proposed projects uneconomic and hinder the commercial deplo ym ent of this critical technology

.

EEI urges EPA to defer to site

- specific characteristic wherever possible in the regula tions.

For example, the proposed regulations contemplate a 50

- ye ar po st

- injection site care period, but

the UI C program director can require continued monitoring if he or she deems it necessary to

protect underground sources of drinking water

. In the n ot ice of p roposed r ulemaking, EPA states

that it is willing to consider other time frames for the post

- injection site care period, but instead

of a default, the Agency should let the characteristics of each site determine the appropriate
length of time for p ost

- injection site care. If the director has the discretion to vary the length of
the monitoring period based on site

- specific characteristics, establishing a length y d efault period

would place an unnecessary burden on those owners and operators who can s how that their
project s pose no threat to underground sources of drinking water in less than 50 y ears

. In fact,

EEI and its members believe that appropriatel y site d CCS projects will be able to make such a
demonstration in substantially less than 50 years , perhaps onl y 10 years since data suggest that10

the risk profile of carbon dioxide injection tails off markedl y aft er a decade. Consequently , a
length y default period would penalize those owners and operators who have taken steps to ensure
proper site cha racterization. Surely , EPA would rather reward

– and, therefore, encourage

– appropriate siting: P roper ly managed site characterization and operations are the best way to
ensure the highest level of protection for underground sources of drinking water.

Similarly , financial assurance requirements should not be set as defaults, but instead should be
flexible enough to take into account the particular risks associated with a given project. All
projects are not created equal
, and therefore, not all risks ar e the same. Projects with decreased
risks should be able to take advantage of proper siting to reduce not only their regulatory
burdens, but also their costs of capital and financial assurance.

EEI and its members also encourage EPA to consider performan ce

- based requirements over
prescriptive rules

. Again, these are better regulatory options for CCS projects because they
ensure that a project is subject to only those requirements that have been shown to be necessary

. Moreover, in man y cases they will be tter protect underground sources of drinking water than
default prescriptions

.

For example, the Agency has proposed a 10

- year default period for operators to reevaluate
periodicall y the proper scope of the Area of Review. If such a review were required w hen
triggered b y appropriate circumstances, the A rea o f R eview would be reviewed onl y when

necessary , but as often as necessary . In this way , allowing site

- specific performance
characteristics to guide regulatory requirements means that those projects tha t pose the greater11

risk for potential harm to sources of drinking water reevaluate their A reas o f R eview as often as

needed
, and those projects that do not pose such risks are not burdened b y unnecessary

re evaluations . At a minimum, a default period for r eevaluations of the proper scope of the Area
of Review should be determined by site

- specific characteristics at the time of permitting.

P rescriptive regulations and defaults often have unintended negative consequences. For
example, consider EPA’s propos al to grandfather only construction requirements for wells that

currentl y a re permitted as Class V experimental storage wells. This limited grandfathering, if
part of the final rule, w ould render man y ex perimental storage projects as stranded investments

and w ould limit the number of formations available for future storage. A better approach would

be to allow Class V permit holders to make their case to EPA, based on the specific
characteristics of their site, that the formation can provide long

- term stor age for carbon dioxide
without endangering underground sources of drinking water. In th is way , regulatory flexibility
can serve to protect water sources without undul y l imiting the number and ty pe of formations

available for carbon dioxide storage

.

Sim ilarly , the regulations should be sufficientl y flexible to allow operators of geologic storage
facilities, as well as operators of enhanced oil recovery or enhanced g as r ecovery projects

convert ing their operations to geologic carbon storage facilities
, to site these projects above
underground sources of drinking water, if they can show there is unlikely to be harm to USDW

.

T he proposed regulation s make this nearl y i mpossible since they would restrict injection for
long

- term storage to formations that are below the lowermost underground source of drinking

water

. E nhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery facilities have been injecting carbon12

di oxide into formations above underground sources of drinking water for more than 30 years
without migration or leakage incidents

. Rather than reject these ty pes of projects as potential
geologic carbon storage sites by rule, EPA should permit the owners and operators of t hese kinds

of projects to make their case based on the specific characteristics of each site.

F lexibl e, site

- specific regulations ask a great deal of the regulator, in this case the UIC program

director. Despite these challenges, EEI urges EPA to consider these t ypes of regulations because
they present a win

- win situation: a higher level of env ironmental protection while fostering a
regulatory regime that encourages investment in CCS projects. W e also acknowledge that these

benefits cannot be realized unless the UI C program director is given good guidance on how best

to exercise his or her disc retion. EPA should provide that guidance in either the final regulations
or supplemental guidance
, in order to ensure that the director’s decisions have a sound regulatory

basis.

As I noted, Southern has begun evaluating geologic storage sites includin g our demonstration
injection project in Mississippi. The purpose of this project, which is part of the Southeast
Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, is to learn more about the siting of geologic storage.
Carbon capture and storage is not y et a co mmercial

- scale technology
, and projects like ours are

crucial for expanding our technical expertise. To this end , EEI asks EPA to ensure that the final
regulations can consider and, as appropriate, incorporate data developed through thi s and other

carbon capture and storage demonstration pr ojects.13

EEI and I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional input to this rulemaking process. EEI

and its members are confident that we can work with EPA and other stakeholders to create a

clear and flexible r egulatory scheme that achieves two important goals: the protection of
underground sources of drinking water and the promotion of carbon capture and storage
technology and projects.Letter ID: 0109 Commenter: Karl R. Moor Organization: Southern Company, on behalf of Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21991 Letter Lines: 51 to 88

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

Comment: First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. Electricity generation produces 34 percen t of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The Energy Information Administration projects net el ectric demand will in crease 30 percent by 2030, even after taking into account en ergy- efficiency improvements. New and replacement power plant capacity to m eet this increased demand is projected to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload generation in the United States and will co ntinue to be an important fuel for generating electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental benefits of carbon capture and storage - in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions - are substantial. Conseque ntly, EEI and its members see carbon capture and storage as a critical elemen t in the full portfolio of options needed not only to reduce carbon dioxide emi ssions, but also to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric servi ce to customers throughout the United States.
Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. We are here today to learn as well as to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern Company and American Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with pilot and demonstration pr ojects involving site ch aracterization, permitting, monitoring and verification, and understan ding storage capacity and integrity. Our testimony today is informed by what we have already learned from these projects. Our goal at these hearings - a nd throughout this process - is to use this experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are part of a clear and fl exible regulatory regime that will facilitate the development of, and inve stment in, carbon capture and storage technology and projects.
As EPA noted in the Preamble to the pr oposed regulations, its goal is to create a regulatory framework that "supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology." EPA’s regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving carbon capture a nd storage closer to reality. EEI and its members applaud EP A for taking this step, and encourage EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the regulations. EEI and its members intend to submit deta iled written comments on the proposed regulations, but today I would like to hi ghlight several initial areas for EPA

1consideration.

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.
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: 0109 Comment ID: 21992 Letter Lines: 90 to 98

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate ris k, don't stigmatize CO2

Comment: Key Messages
We have two key messages for EPA today:
First, the regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without unduly stigmatizing carbon di oxide injection and storage. Carbon dioxide has been injected for years for e nhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery without incident.

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the GS re gulation stigmatizes CO2 injection. However, EPA believes that injecting large vo lumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other adverse impacts. The final, tailored, Class VI requirement s address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and pot ential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tail ored permitting, siting, construction, operation,

2monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.
EPA believes that building upon th e existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulation provides a foundation for protecting USDWs based on success, field experience, and le ssons learned about CO2 injection in other applications. Class I well owners or operators ha ve experience with site characterization, well construction, and monitoring procedures and technol ogies that are applicab le to Class VI wells. Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the unique properties of CO2. To successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of injected CO2 must be well understood.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21993 Letter Lines: 100 to 103

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

Comment: Second, the regulations should be sufficiently flexible to take into consideration site-specific characteristic s and performance-based measures, and should be sufficiently adaptable to inco rporate lessons learned from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects.

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.
Regarding the comment that flexibility would al low the incorporation of information gained from pilot, demonstration, and early commercial pr ojects, EPA adds that it is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after fina lization of the GS regulation, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and re view project data on GS research 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: 0109 Comment ID: 21994 Letter Lines: 107 to 157

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

Comment: EEI urges EPA to work to ensure th e regulations do not stigmatize carbon geologic storage, which would create public confusion and hamper development of a critical carbon reduction technology.

3As I noted, EPA has recognized that it ha s two goals for the proposed rules for geologic storage of carbon dioxide: the protection of underground sources of drinking water and the promotion of carbon capture and storage. EEI urges EPA to keep both of these goals in mind and to work to ensure that the regulatory regime that is ultimately adopted is de signed to facilitate - not delay or discourage - the successful commercial-s cale development of carbon capture and storage. The potential emissions benef its of commercial-scale carbon storage are too large and too important to ignore in the context of these regulations.

While our written comments will discuss some of the specific ways that the proposed regulations can support the devel opment of appropriate ly sited storage projects, I would also like to bring to your attention today the importance of creating an accurate public perception of the risks and rewards of carbon geologic storage.
In its laudable efforts to protect sour ces of drinking water - an important goal, as we all agree - EPA has ina dvertently stigmatized carbon dioxide injection and storage. In reviewing th e proposal, EEI and its members became very concerned that the proposed regulati ons repeatedly mischaracterized the possible risks posed by carbon diox ide injection and storage.

Indeed, while carbon dioxide is not a hazar dous waste and is, in fact, found in the ambient air in abundance, the proposed rules for CO2 storage are, in many ways, stricter than those for underground injection of hazardous wastes under Class I of the UIC program. Many of th e construction, mechanical integrity, monitoring and financial assurance provi sions for Class VI wells are more comprehensive and more strict than those for Class I wells.

However, carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and does not warrant treatment akin to or more stringent than give n to hazardous wastes. The increased regulatory burden placed on Class VI wells by the pr oposed regulation is of concern to EEI and its members, who are potential owners and operators of CCS projects. We are also concerned that by imposing such stringent measures EPA would be unduly stigmatizing ca rbon geologic storage.
Our industry knows first-hand the importance of accurate public perceptions when it comes to the siting and permitting of n eeded infrastructure expansions or improvements. In the preamble to its pr oposal, EPA finds that the public should participate in the permitting process for carbon dioxide storage projects. Today we ask EPA to ensure that the pub lic fully understands that it is very unlikely carbon geologic storage project s will harm underground sources of drinking water or human health, so that its participation in the permitting process is appropriately informed. EPA can help create accurate public perceptions about carbon capture and storage by retoo ling the proposed regulations to tie requirements to actua l risks more closel y. In addition, EPA

4should remove elements that serve only to fan the flames of fear without offering increased protection to under ground sources of drinking water.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates or mischaracterizes the risk of CO2 injection. EPA recognizes that inj ecting 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 acknowledges the comment about flexibility, a nd believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibilitywith 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 im plement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated th roughout the life of th e project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project.
EPA agrees that informing the public on all aspe cts of GS projects is important. The Agency believes that a demonstration to the public that extensive data have been collected and evaluated would likely improve confidence in the project a nd help address public qu estions and concerns.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21995 Letter Lines: 159 to 176

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

Comment: For example, requiring a secondary cont ainment field would create the wrong impression about the safety of carbon captu re and storage, a nd should not be part of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in the UIC program, even for storage of hazardous wastes in Class I wells. Secondary containment fields are also unprecedented internati onally: Countries where carbon capture and storage projects are currently underway - in cluding Norway, Canada, Australia and Algeria - do not require additional containment zones, and in fact, those countries regulate CCS usi ng existing petroleum laws. Singling out carbon capture and storage for this height ened and substantially more rigorous requirement would suggest to the public that EPA thinks geologic storage of carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of other substances. Since EPA is the agency char ged with protecting the environment, the public could be easily swayed by EP A’s apparent apprehension of carbon capture and storage as currently embodied in the proposed regulations. In order to create a regulatory scheme that fosters carbon capture and storage

5development and deployment, EPA should r econsider how it has characterized carbon dioxide injection - both explicitly and implicitly - in its final regulations.

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. While other countries may not require such additional protection, EPA believes that providing the Director th is additional discretion is an important element of assuring that GS activities will not endanger USDWs.
To the comment that the geologic siting require ments could create a negative public perception, EPA believes that a demonstrati on to the public that extensive data have been collected and evaluated would likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and

concerns.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21996 Letter Lines: 178 to 187

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule

Comment: Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing critical financial backing for CCS proj ects. Misperceptions about risk will also influence financial institutions. The recent turmoil in the financial markets highlights how challenging financi ng of new technologies may become. In a credit-constrained world, investors will be wary of putting their limited funds behind carbon capture and storage project s if they believe they are likely to endanger sources of drinking water or human health. As with public acceptance, EPA can shape carbon capture a nd storage as a tool for reducing carbon emissions by the messages that it sends the financial world with its regulations.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting or incen tivizing GS is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Rather, the purp ose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements to ensure that GS wells are appropriately permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

6EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS ru le overstate the risk associated with GS. The requirements for Class VI wells ar e tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 be ing anticipated for long-term st orage, the buoyant and viscous nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22000 Letter Lines: 189 to 201

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: Similarly, EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon dioxide leaks. Not only ar e tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability to monitor such l eaks - and, in fact, the best tracer for monitoring carbon dioxide leaks would be CO 2 itself - but they also will not transmit information sufficiently early to provide any sort of real protection to underground sources of drinking water. Soil flux monitoring is problematic because it can result in false positives based on natural variability in the earth flux rate. What these requirements would do, however, is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is unsafe because it might be leaking CO2, despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of carbon dioxide retained in appropriately sited st orage sites is very likely to exceed 99 percent over 100 years.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that air and soil gas monitoring are subject to variability and may not be suitable in all se ttings as a method to ensure USDW protection. However, EPA does not believe that this should en tirely preclude their use. For example, if a leak to the surface is suspected, surface monito ring could provide vital information on its location and magnitude to assist owners and operators in identifying what USDWs may have been impacted by a leak. EPA clarifies that the various air and soil gas monitoring methods (e.g., chambers, eddy covariance, hyperspectral imaging) all have different capab ilities that may prove useful in specific GS project s (Miles et al., 2005; Pickles and Cover, 2005; IPCC, 2005; Menzies et al., 2001). The occurrence of false positives will be reduced by comparing monitoring data to baseline data collected prior to injection or from a nearby area away from the GS project.
The final rule at §146.90(h) retains the allowance for surface air and soil gas monitoring at the discretion of the Director as a means of identif ying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a Class VI ow ner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursu ant to requirements at §146.91(c). EPA cl arifies that the decision to use surface monitoring and the selecti on of monitoring methods will be site-specific (e.g., may be influenced by geology, injection depth, and operational conditions) and must be based on potential risks to USDWs within the AoR.

7EPA agrees that the use of tracer s should not be required at all GS sites, but should be available as an option. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, the Director has discretion to require their use if he/she determ ines 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 operat or and approved by the Director.
EPA agrees that the CO2 itself may serve as a tra cer in the form of stable isotopes of carbon. For example, anthropogenic CO2 is depleted in 13C co mpared to naturally occurring CO2. If tracers are determined to be necessary at a GS site, this may be an appropriate option.
EPA disagrees that the use of tracers, if neede d, would signal to the public that GS is unsafe. EPA believes that tracers can be useful tools for monitoring, plume tracking, and verification at GS sites and may help improve public confiden ce in certain projects. EPA believes that providing the public with important information about the project, includ ing how tracers would be an integral part of the site monitoring pla n, will be a key part of improving public acceptance of specific projects and GS technology in general.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22001 Letter Lines: 203 to 207

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

Comment: EEI and its members urge EPA encouragemen t of carbon capture and storage to be reflected in the final regulations, and recommend that the final regulations serve this purpose by appropr iately characterizing carbon dioxide and its risks. The final regulations should be carefully crafted, therefore, to avoid creating a public stigma around this critical GHG emissions control technology.

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, the final, tailored, Class VI requireme nts 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 expects the tail ored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22002 Letter Lines: 209 to 236

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

Comment: Our second message for EPA today addr esses the importance of regulatory flexibility.
Regulatory flexibility is essential for carbon capture and storage projects. EEI cautions against overly prescriptive, one-siz e fits all regulations because they

8add costs without ensuring greater protect ion to underground s ources of drinking water.
Because no two geologic formations are the same, no two CCS projects will be the same. The geologic framework in the sele cted injection formation - including, but not limited to, geometry, depth, co mposition, confining strata, and the number and location of existing wells in the Area of Review - will all affect how and whether a project moves forwar d. EPA already recognizes that each storage project will be unique: Under the proposed regulatio ns, a potential owner or operator of a project will be required to present de tailed information in its permit application that is specifi c to the geologic formation chosen for storage and the surrounding area, both above and below the surface. Based on the site-specific information presented, the UIC program director will decide whether to issue a permit.
Consistent with EPA’s approach to permitting, the portions of the proposed regulations that address inherently site -specific issues should allow for sitespecific determinations. Tying regulat ory requirements to site-specific characteristics not only will ensure that properly sited projects are able to secure the approvals and financing needed to move forward, but also will prevent the imposition of unnecessary and expensive re quirements that could render some proposed projects uneconomic and hinder the commercial deployment of this critical technology.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on site-specific factors. The GS ru le requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demons trate that a site is suitable for GS. Additionally, many of the permit require ments for GS wells are established through individualized site-specific pl ans for AoR and corrective actio n, testing and monitoring, and injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS rule includes a balance of speci fic criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of Directorial discretion and consider ations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, site-specific aspects of each project, while prov iding consistency in permitting across the U.S.

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: 0109 Comment ID: 22003 Letter Lines: 238 to 260

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: EEI urges EPA to defer to site-specific ch aracteristic wherever possible in the regulations.

9For example, the proposed regulations cont emplate a 50-year post- injection site care period, but the UIC program director can require con tinued monitoring if he or she deems it necessary to protect underg round sources of drinking water. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA states that it is willing to consider other time frames for the post-injecti on site care period, but instead of a default, the Agency should let the charac teristics of each si te determine the appropriate length of time for post-inject ion site care. If the director has the discretion to vary the length of the monitoring period based on sitespecific characteristics, establishing a lengthy default period would place an unnecessary burden on those owners and ope rators who can s how that their projects pose no threat to underground sour ces of drinking water in less than 50 years. In fact, EEI and its members be lieve that appropriately sited CCS projects will be able to make such a de monstration in substantially less than 50 years, perhaps only 10 years since data s uggest that the risk profile of carbon dioxide injection tails off markedly af ter a decade. Consequently, a lengthy default period would penalize those owners and operators who have taken steps to ensure proper site characterization. Su rely, EPA would rather reward - and, therefore, encourage - appropriate siting: Properly managed site characterization and operations are the best way to ensure the highest level of protection for underground sour ces of drinking water.

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 final 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 PISC period based on site-specific data, pur suant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting process, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).
Because of the variety of site-specific circumstance s at GS sites, EPA believes that Directors, inconsultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether additional postinjection site care monitoring is needed (or wh ether the timeframe may be shortened), based on the circumstances of a particular project. EPA exp ects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in consultation 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 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.

10EPA agrees that proper site characterization is a critical component of ensuring that USDWs are protected. However, EPA disagrees that this is a substitute fo r post-injection site care. EPA believes that extensive post-injection monito ring is necessary to protect USDWs from endangerment.
EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22004 Letter Lines: 262 to 267

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

Comment: Similarly, financial assurance requirement s should not be set as defaults, but instead should be flexible enough to ta ke into account the particular risks associated with a given project. All projects are not created equal, and therefore, not all risks are the same. Proj ects with decreased risks should be able to take advantage of proper siti ng to reduce not only their regulatory burdens, but also their costs of capital and financial assurance.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to al low a flexible approach for financial responsibility. Under the final GS rule owners or operators may c hoose from a variety of financial instruments to demonstrate meeting th eir financial responsibil ity obligations, provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to pay for each activ ity for which financial responsibility must be demonstrated, including correctiv e action on wells in the AoR, in jection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response. EPA is deve loping guidance to help owners or operators, permitting authorities, and third pa rties choose and evaluate appropriate financial methods and states may set more specific financia l responsibility requirements if they so choose and it allowed under their respective state law. The guidance will be available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/ground water/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.
The cost of securing financial responsibility inst ruments will be based on whether or not a third party financial institution is used and the agr eement between the financial institution and the owner or operator. EPA expects that some third party providers, such as insurers, will take risk into account when determining the cost of c overage. However, cost is expected to depend heavily on the estimated cost of c overed activities as well as certain site-specific factors. In order to assist owners or operators and financial instit utions in achieving accura te cost estimates, EPA plans to include a discussion of how to estimate costs, including how to adjust cost estimates for inflation, in its guidance on mee ting financial responsibility requi rements for Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22005 Letter Lines: 269 to 274

11Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards)

Comment: EEI and its members also encourage EP A to consider performance-based requirements over prescriptive rules. Again, these are better regulatory options for CCS projects because they ensu re that a project is subject to only those requirements that have been show n to be necessary. Moreover, in many cases they will better protect undergr ound sources of drinking water than default prescriptions.

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: 0109 Comment ID: 22006 Letter Lines: 276 to 286

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

Comment: For example, the Agency has proposed a 10- year default period for operators to reevaluate periodically the proper scope of the Area of Review. If such a review were required when triggered by a ppropriate circumstances, the Area of Review would be reviewed only when necessary, but as often as necessary. In this way, allowing site- specific perf ormance characteristics to guide regulatory requirements means that those projects that pose the greater risk for potential harm to sources of drinking wate r reevaluate their Areas of Review as often as needed, and those projects that do not pose such risks are not burdened by unnecessary reevaluations. At a minimum, a default period for reevaluations of the proper scope of the Area of Review should be determined by site-specific characteristics at the time of permitting.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that site-specific fact ors should be considered in the reevaluation schedule, and notes that the AoR and corrective acti on plan must specify the sitespecific monitoring and operationa l conditions that warrant r eevaluation, as specified in §146.84(b)(2)(ii). In addition, the Director has discretion to require more frequent AoR reevaluation if he or she has r eason to believe, based on site-speci fic information, that a five-year reevaluation schedule is not sufficiently pr otective of USDWs.
However, EPA believes that setting a minimum reevaluation frequency is appropriate. In the final rule, the Agency changed the minimum fr equency for the AoR reevaluation at §146.84(e) from 10 years to at least every 5 years in the final GS rule. EPA belie ves that this 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,

12and the unique nature of CO2 GS.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22007 Letter Lines: 288 to 299

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

Comment: Prescriptive regulations and defau lts often have unintended negative consequences. For example, consider EPA’s proposal to grandfather only construction requirements for wells that currently are permitted as Class V experimental storage wells. This limite d grandfathering, if pa rt of the final rule, would render many experimental stor age projects as stranded investments and would limit the number of formations available for future storage. A better approach would be to allow Class V perm it holders to make their case to EPA, based on the specific characteristics of their site, that the formation can provide long-term storag e for carbon dioxide without endangering underground sources of drinking water. In this wa y, regulatory flexibility can serve to protect water sources without unduly limiting the number a nd type of formations available for carbon dioxide storage.

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).

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22008 Letter Lines: 301 to 313

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: Similarly, the regulations should be suffici ently flexible to allow operators of geologic storage facilities, as well as operators of e nhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery projects conver ting their operations to geologic carbon storage facilities, to site these proj ects above underground sources of drinking water, if they can show there is unlik ely to be harm to USDW. The proposed regulations make this nearly impossible si nce they would restrict injection for long-term storage to formations that ar e below the lowermost underground source of drinking water. Enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery facilities have been injecting carbon dioxide into formations above underground sources of drinking water for more than 30 years wit hout migration or leakage incidents. Rather than reject these types of projects as poten tial geologic carbon storage

13sites by rule, EPA should permit the owners and operators of these kinds of projects to make their case based on th e specific characteri stics of each site.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injecti on into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The final rule also establishes limited circumstances under which expansions of the areal extent of aquifer exemptions may be granted for owne rs or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS.
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 and aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EP A's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.
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.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22009 Letter Lines: 315 to 323

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: Flexible, site-specific regulations ask a gr eat deal of the regulator, in this case the UIC program director. Despite these challenges, EEI urges EPA to consider these types of regulations because they present a win-win situation: a higher level of environmental protection while fostering a regulatory regime that encourages investment in CCS proj ects. We also acknowledge that these

14benefits cannot be realiz ed unless the UIC program director is given good guidance on how best to exer cise his or her discretion. EPA should provide that guidance in either the final regulations or supplemental guidance, in order to ensure that the director’s decisi ons have a sound re gulatory basis.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that flexibility is im portant to accommodate the varied conditions that may be encountered at GS sites. EPA notes that the final rule does allow owners or operators flexibility. Many of the permit requirements will be established through site-specific plans developed by the owner or operator and appr oved by the Director, and EPA anticipates that owners or operators will consult with the Director as they develop, implement, and update these plans. In addition, the final rule affords the Director flexibility to approve alternatives to the requirements in some cases. For example, the Director may in certain situations modify the length of the post-injection site care period or approve an altern ative post-injection site care timeframe as part of the permitting process under §146.93, allow the use of alternate methods for mechanical integrity testing, and waive the require ment that wells be designed to inject below the lowermost USDW. Additionally, the regulations provide flexibility for selecting appropriate sites and target formations at §146.82, well c onstruction specifics at §146.86, and testing and monitoring regimes at §146.90, provided the owne r or operator can de monstrate that the injection and storage will not endanger USDWs a nd that minimum requirements for the site are met.
EPA agrees with commenters on the importan ce of allowing Directors discretion given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate th e unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decisi on made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum Federal requirements to ensure national consistency while ensuring the protection of USDWs. To ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe th e process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues related to de veloping GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum Federal criteria and requirem ents. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.
As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the permits so that USDWs are not being sufficientl y protected from endangerment, it will consider changes to the permit requirements in the future.

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22010 Letter Lines: 325 to 337

Comment Code: 1852 1.4.2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Seque stration Partnerships

Comment: As I noted, Southern has begun evaluating geologic storage sites including our demonstration injection project in Missi ssippi. The purpose of this project,

1516 which is part of the Southeast Carbon Se questration Regional Part nership, is to learn more about the siting of geologic st orage. Carbon capture and storage is not yet a commercial-scale technology, and projects like ours are crucial for expanding our technical expertise. To this end, EEI asks EPA to ensure that the final regulations can consider and, as a ppropriate, incorporate data developed through this and other car bon capture and storage dem onstration projects. EEI and I appreciate the opportunity to provi de additional input to this rulemaking process. EEI and its members are confident that we can work with EPA and other stakeholders to create a clear and flexib le regulatory scheme that achieves two important goals: the protection of underg round sources of drinking water and the promotion of carbon capture and storage technology and projects.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects a nd resultant data and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seve n RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Te chnology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the pr oposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on A ugust 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Ut ah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico.
EPA agrees that flexibility to address new research is important. Even after finalizing the rule, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including research by the DOE Partnerships, to determine whether th e appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collecte d, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.