### 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.American E!er,triG Power

1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, OH 43215,2373

AEP.col11



### VIA ELECTRONIC AND HAND DELIVERY

October IS, 2009

Water Docket

EPA Docket Center (EP AIDe)



### Public Reading Room 3334

EPA West

1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Attn: Docket ill 

### No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390



### Re: Comments on Notice of Data Availability for Federal Requirements Under

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide

(C0 2 ) 

### Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells (74 Fed. Reg. 44802 (Aug. 31,

2009)), Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

To whom it may concern:

Amellcan Electric Power Service Corporation submits these comments on the Notice of

Data Availability and Request for Comment ("NOD A") relating to the proposed Federal

Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control ("UIC") Program for Carbon Dioxide

("C0 2 ") 

### Geologic Sequestration Wells. 74 Fed. Reg. 44802 (Aug. 31, 2009) on behalf of the

operating companies of the American Electric Power system (AEP). The AEP system delivers

electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP companies own nearly 38,000

megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S., and consume approximately 77 million tons of

coal and 103 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually.

AEP has constructed a 20-MW CO 2 

### capture process validation facility (PVF) at the

Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia that is operational. The PVF will capture approximately

100,000 metric tons of CO 2 

### per year, which will be stored in saline formations approximately

8,000 feet below the plant site. AEP is also seeking funding from the U.S. Department of

Energy to build a new commercial-scale version of this technology to capture CO 2 

### from a 235-

MW flue gas stream of the 1 ,300-MW Mountaineer Plant. If approved, this commercial-scale

technology is expected to capture and store approximately 1.5 million metric tons of CO 2 

### per

year. AEP is committed to the development and application of CO 2 

### capture and storage

technologies and has a vested interest in the federally proposed UIC program and associated

NODA.

### Water Docket

October 15, 2009

Page 2



### AEP recognizes that the development of a viable carbon capture and sequestration

("CCS") regulatory program has been cited by many as a prerequisite to the implementation of

energy reform initiatives involving carbon reduction measures on both the federal and state level.

EPA predicts that the electric power sector, including AEP, "will most likely be the largest

potential market for [CCS] technologies,". and predicts that CCS technology could lead to CO 2

reductions of approximately 80-90% at a single plant. 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44492 (July 30,

2008). AEP believes that our decades of research, engineering experience, and involvement with

the management of fossil fuel combustion materials and more importantly, our work with the

development and application of CO 2 capture and storage technologies at our Mountaineer PVF,

provide us with a valuable knowledge base and perspective from which to provide meaningful

input on the development of EPA's UIC regulations for C02 OS.

AEP applauds EPA's careful approach to the development of CO 2 OS regulations,

including this most recent release of additional data. Because the technology contemplated in

the CO 2 

### OS proposal will not be commercially deployed for many years, it is essential that the

final rule be flexible enough to accommodate developments in information and technology

related to carbon sequestration. It 

### is critical that EPA develop a regulatory regime incorporating

pelformance-based standards in order to allow for site-tailored requirements that will reflect the

vast differences among vmious potential CO 2 

### OS sites.

AEP supports EPA's suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow for CO 2 OS

injection above and between underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). 74 Fed. Reg. at

44810. As stated in the NODA, EPA's original proposal to define Class VI injection wells as

those used for injection of CO 2 

### beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW (73 Fed.

Reg. at 43511) would preclude injection of CO 2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby

restricting or rendering impossible CO 2 OS sites in lm'ge areas of the country with deep USDWs.

74 Fed. Reg. at 44808. The proposal would also prohibit C02 injection into many shallow

formations such as coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. As the NODA observes, a

number of states have indicated that regions with very deep and layered USDWs could not

undertake CO 2 OS projects because injectors could not comply with the proposed injection depth

and well construction requirements. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44809.

EPAaddresses these concerns by the proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the

originally proposed injection depth requirement, but allow owners or operators to apply for a

site-specific waiver from those injection depth requirements upon making a demonstration that

such injection can be undertaken in a manner that prevents the endangerment of public health

from USDW contamination. Id. at 44810. AEP believes that such a flexible approach would

ensure adequate protection of USDW s while recognizing the vast geographic and topographic

differences between potential C02 OS sites throughout the country, allowing for maximization of

safe C02 storage capacity nationwide.

While AEP supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal described above, AEP

urges EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a waiver provision, rather than leaving the

adoption of an injection depth waiver process to the discretion of the individual 

### VIC Program

Directors. Id. at 44811. While it is true that deep USDWs do not exist in every state and that

states without USDWs may choose not to grant waivers, inclusion of a waiver provision would

### Water Docket

October 15, 2009

Page 3

still leave UIC Program Directors free to decline to grant any waivers where not necessary or

appropriate. See id. 

### CO 2 

### GS technology is rapidly developing; because this experience with and

information regarding this technology is growing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a regulatory

framework that is flexible enough to respond to developments in the field.

The NODA also notes that the availability of recent field data and research studies "could

change EPA's approach to the final rulemaking." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43492,44803. The NODA

contains discussion on three experimental GS projects. In evaluating the techniques employed in

these projects and the data produced, the Agency should keep in mind that experimental projects

are just that-experimental projects. The techniques employed in any given setting may have

been intended to provide information about that specific technology or that particular setting, but

their successful employment in an experimental setting should not dictate their uni versal

application.

For example, the NODA' s discussion of the SECARB Plant Daniel project notes that the

project meets a number of Class I requirements related to pre-injection mechanical integrity of

both the injection and monitoring well, including a radioactive tracer survey. It 

### further

emphasizes the project's use of surface or near-surface monitoring for upward CO 2 

### migration,

stating that use of these techniques "provides the EPA with preliminary information regarding

the efficacy and appropriateness of these technologies at certain sites" and "supports the need for

a site-specific monitOling plan that will allow use of a range of monitoring techniques suitable

for each unique GS site." 74 Fed. Reg. at 44806. The NODA also references the use of tracers

and microseismic monitoring in its discussion of the SWP Project in Aneth Field, Utah, stating

that the project "confirms the need for a project design with a robust monitoring plan" as well as

"the utility of various monitoring technologies." 

### Id. at 44806

It 

### is appropriate to test techniques such as tracers, surface air/soil gas monitoring and

microseismic monitoring to determine their overall usefulness and effectiveness during this

experimental peliod for CCS. The NODA's description of these projects, however, could be

read to suggest that the Agency favors establishing requirements for the use of tracers, surface

air/soil gas monitoring, and/or microseismic monitoring. Through EEl, AEP has previously

advised against imposition of a requirement to use tracers or surface air/soil gas monitOling to

detect movement of CO 2

, 

### even where, as the Agency proposed, such a requirement is left to the

VIC program director's discretion. In the case of tracers or surface air/soil gas monitoring, these

technologies would likely provide too little information, too late, in terms of protecting USDWs,

and the risk of "false positives" is high. With regards to micro seismic monitoring, AEP's

experience has raised concerns about its application to full-scale projects. Specifically, existing

monitoring equipment has not proven reliable, and alternative sources of comparable equipment

are not readily available.

While the use of many technologies, including tracers, surface air/soil gas monitoring and

microseismic monitoring may be appropriate and useful in the context of an experimental



### project, the Agency must keep in mind this context. The utility of such technologies in any

given experimental context does not necessarily warrant their use in a commercial setting.

Moreover, EPA must separate the utility of these technologies in the experimental context in

### Water Docket

October 15, 2009

Page 4

further demonstrating the efficacy of storage from their potential utility as "leak detectors"

during the operation of commercial CCS projects.

AEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on these new data and EPA's new proposal

for an injection depth waiver process. AEP also endorses the comments of EEl and USW AG

and incorporates them by reference into these comments.

If 

### you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tim Lohner of my

staff at 614-716-1255 or at twlohner@AEP.com.

Sincerely,

# ~!l,;r~~v

John M. McManus

Vice President

- Environmental Services

American Ejectric Power Service Corporation

cc: A.R. Wood/T.W. Lohner, Ph.D.

- AEP

J.J. Henry

- AEP Legal

G.O. Sptiznogle

- AEPLetter ID: 0345

Commenter: John M. McManus

Organization: American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP)

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27878 Letter Lines: 58 to 70

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA

Comment: AEP recognizes that the development of a viable carbon capture and sequestration

("CCS") regulatory program has been cited by many as a prerequisite to the

implementation of energy reform initiatives involving carbon reduction measures

on both the federal and state level. EPA predicts that the electric power

sector, including AEP, "will most likely be the largest potential market for

[CCS] technologies," and predicts that CCS technology could lead to CO2

reductions of approximately 80

‐ 90% at a single plant. 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44492

(July 30, 2008). AEP believes that our decades of research, engineering

experience, and involvement with the management of fossil fuel combustion

materials and more importantly, our work with the development and application of

CO2capture and storage technologies at our Mountaineer PVF, provide us with a

valuable knowledge base and perspective from which to provide meaningful input

on the development of EPA's UIC regulations for C02 GS.

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27879 Letter Lines: 72 to 79

Comment Code: 1000 1. General Comments on the Notice of Data Availability

Comment: AEP applauds EPA's careful approach to the development of CO2 GS regulations,

including this most recent release of additional data. Because the technology

contemplated in the CO2 GS proposal will not be commercially deployed for many

years, it is essential that the final rule be flexible enough to accommodate

developments in information and technology related to carbon sequestration. It

is critical that EPA develop a regulatory regime incorporating performance

‐ based

standards in order to allow for site

‐ tailored requirements that will reflect the

vast differences among various potential CO2 GS sites.Individual Response: EPA believes that the final rule is based on the most recent GS

‐ related data,

information, and scientific research available. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to

incorporate such data as it implements its adaptive approach to GS rulemaking to incorporate new

research, data, and information about GS. The Agency believes that an adaptive approach provides Class

VI owners or operators the flexibility to use and apply newly developed technologies for GS as they

become available in the future.

EPA agrees with the commenter that a site

‐ specific approach to permitting GS sites is important. The

final rule provides Class VI owners or operators the flexibility to select technologies appropriate for a

specific site and affords the Director flexibility to establish permit requirements on the basis of site

‐

specific characteristics. For additional information on the adaptive approach and site

‐ specific

requirements, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27880 Letter Lines: 81 to 103

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: AEP supports EPA's suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow for

CO2OS injection above and between underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).

74 Fed. Reg. at 44810. As stated in the NODA, EPA's original proposal to define

Class VI injection wells as those used for injection of CO2 beneath the

lowermost formation containing a USDW (73 Fed. Reg. at 43511) would preclude

injection of CO2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby restricting or

rendering impossible CO2 GS sites in large areas of the country with deep USDWs.

74 Fed. Reg. at 44808. The proposal would also prohibit CO2 injection into many

shallow formations such as coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. As the

NODA observes, a number of states have indicated that regions with very deep and

layered USDWs could not undertake CO2 GS projects because injectors could not

comply with the proposed injection depth and well construction requirements. 74

Fed. Reg. at 44809.

EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the

originally proposed injection depth requirement, but allow owners or operators

to apply for a site

‐ specific waiver from those injection depth requirements upon

making a demonstration that such injection can be undertaken in a manner that

prevents the endangerment of public health from USDW contamination. Id. at

44810. AEP believes that such a flexible approach would ensure adequate

protection of USDWs while recognizing the vast geographic and topographic

differences between potential C02 GS sites throughout the country, allowing for

maximization of safe C02 storage capacity nationwide.Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site

‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection into non

‐ USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs.

The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators can seek a waiver of

the Class VI injection depth requirements. The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to

concerns about 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) allows 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 injection depth variability through a waiver process responds to

concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure high quality water

remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs.

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27881 Letter Lines: 105 to 114

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach

Comment: While AEP supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal described above,

AEP urges EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a waiver provision,

rather than leaving the adoption of an injection depth waiver process to the

discretion of the individual VIC Program Directors. Id. at 44811. While it is

true that deep USDWs do not exist in every state and that states without USDWs

may choose not to grant waivers, inclusion of a waiver provision would still leave UIC Program Directors

free to decline to grant any waivers

where not necessary or appropriate. See id. CO2 GS technology is rapidly

developing; because this experience with and information regarding this

technology is growing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a regulatory framework

that is flexible enough to respond to developments in the field.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowingfor waivers based on regional or state

‐ specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if

they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, Territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.

EPA recognizes that GS technologies are rapidly developing. For this reason, the Agency is adopting an

adaptive rulemaking approach. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects,

including information on any Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements, to

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27882 Letter Lines: 116 to 124

Comment Code: 2000 2. Comments on Research, Data Analysis, and Findings presented in the NODA

(seeking comment)

Comment: The NODA also notes that the availability of recent field data and research

studies "could change EPA's approach to the final rulemaking." 73 Fed. Reg. at

43492,44803. The NODA contains discussion on three experimental GS projects. In

evaluating the techniques employed in these projects and the data produced, the

Agency should keep in mind that experimental projects are just that

‐ experimental

projects. The techniques employed in any given setting may have been intended to

provide information about that specific technology or that particular setting,

but their successful employment in an experimental setting should not dictate

their universal application.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the regional partnerships provide important information on GS,

but recognizes that use of a technology in a RCSP project does not necessarily make the technology valid

for all applications. Each project will be unique and the final rule provides for site

‐ specific approaches to

ensure that appropriate construction, operation, and monitoring is performed at each site. However, by

testing multiple technologies, the pilot sites provide valuable data that demonstrate whether or not

these technologies are viable and informed the final GS rule. Please see the discussion of EPA's final

regulatory approach in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional detail on the final requirements

for GS wells.

Letter ID: 0345 Comment ID: 27885 Letter Lines: 140 to 163Comment Code: 2100 2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Projects

Comment Code: 5450 5.9. Comments on the Proposed Monitoring Requirements (146.90)

Comment: It is appropriate to test techniques such as tracers, surface air/soil gas

monitoring and microseismic monitoring to determine their overall usefulness and

effectiveness during this experimental period for CCS. The NODA's description of

these projects, however, could be read to suggest that the Agency favors

establishing requirements for the use of tracers, surface air/soil gas

monitoring, and/or microseismic monitoring. Through EEI, AEP has previously

advised against imposition of a requirement to use tracers or surface air/soil

gas monitoring to detect movement of CO2, even where, as the Agency proposed,

such a requirement is left to the UIC program director's discretion. In the case

of tracers or surface air/soil gas monitoring, these technologies would likely

provide too little information, too late, in terms of protecting USDWs, and the

risk of "false positives" is high. With regards to microseismic monitoring,

AEP's experience has raised concerns about its application to full

‐ scale

projects. Specifically, existing monitoring equipment has not proven reliable,

and alternative sources of comparable equipment are not readily available.

While the use of many technologies, including tracers, surface air/soil gas

monitoring and microseismic monitoring may be appropriate and useful in the

context of an experimental project, the Agency must keep in mind this context.

The utility of such technologies in any given experimental context does not

necessarily warrant their use in a commercial setting. Moreover, EPA must

separate the utility of these technologies in the experimental context in

further demonstrating the efficacy of storage from their potential utility as

"leak detectors" during the operation of commercial CCS projects.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the pilot sites studied involved extensive monitoring that

may not necessarily be appropriate for all GS sites. EPA believes that a robust monitoring program is

critical to ensuring protection of USDWs at GS projects from endangerment, but clarifies that the use of

any monitoring technique in the pilot projects does not amount to an endorsement by EPA or an intent

by EPA to require that particular method. By testing multiple technologies, the pilot sites provide

valuable data that demonstrate whether or not these technologies are viable and inform the final GS

rule about the appropriate use of monitoring technologies.

EPA acknowledges that the appropriate monitoring methods and technologies will be determined on a

site

‐ specific basis. Data from the projects presented supports the need for a site

‐ specific monitoring

plan that will allow use of a range of monitoring technologies suitable for each unique GS site.

EPA recognizes that certain monitoring technologies, particularly surface air and soil gas monitoring, and

tracers are subject to variability and may not be appropriate or necessary in all settings. EPA alsorecognizes that seismic plume tracking may not be appropriate in all settings, e.g., in certain types of

geologic formations. The final GS rule at 40 CFR 146.90 gives the Director discretion to determine what

methods are appropriate. All monitoring must be performed according to the Director

‐ approved testing

and monitoring plan. See the response to comments document for the proposed rule for additional

information on EPA’s final approach to monitoring at GS sites.

The testing and monitoring requirements for the GS wells at §146.90 incorporate elements of pre

‐

existing UIC requirements for monitoring and testing, tailored and augmented as appropriate for GS

projects. EPA recognizes that much will be learned about monitoring and testing technologies and their

application in various settings in the early phases of GS deployment. EPA plans, every six years, to collect

and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information

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

requirements are appropriate or necessary as part of the Agency’s adaptive rulemaking approach.