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.December 24, 2008

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water (OGWDW)

Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460

RE: Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geosequestration Wells, Proposed Rule

Dear Docket:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the American Public Power Association (APPA). Our two associations represent utilities that provide drinking water and/or electric generation to approximately 260,000,000 customers across the United States. Together we represent more than 90% of all the municipal electric (2,000) and drinking water systems (4,700) of all sizes.

We submit this letter in response to the proposed rule from the July 25 th , 2008 Federal Register (73 FR 43491). Both associations will file more detailed comments. However, AWWA and APPA have the following common concerns, which we are also addressing in more detail in separate Association correspondence.

 Protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) should be the highest priority – "water should trump everything!"

 A Class VI regulatory permit system is needed to advance geosequestration demonstration projects.

 Geosequestration activities should be prohibited in the immediate vicinity of sole source aquifers.

 The protection of the lowermost USDWs is of critical importance, and the location of these USDWs should be the primary factor in determining if a geosequestration project can be located in the same area.

 Reevaluation of the Area of Review should occur annually for the first ten years, and then every five years for the remaining life of the project.

 Although geosequestration might look feasible, especially in oil/gas formations, there is still much to be known about this technology. The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water SMDecember 24, 2008 Page 2

 Congress must address liability issues under CERCLA, RCRA and Natural Resource Damage Assessment before this technology is commercially deployable.

 It is not realistic to presume that we know enough about carbon separation or geosequestration to draw the conclusion that all new power plants with these new technologies would be carbon neutral in the first few decades of operation.

 More research is needed to answer USDW protection and technical questions related to feasibility, infrastructure and reliability. This research includes the work from the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies.

We appreciate the expertise from your staff, and the public workshops and meetings that were held by your agency during the deliberative process. We stand ready to work with you and the state regulatory agencies in implementing the new rule.

Yours Sincerely,

Thomas W. Curtis Theresa Pugh Deputy Executive Director Director, Environmental Services

American Water Works Association American Public Power AssociationLetter ID: 0204

Commenter: Thomas Curtis Organization: American Wate r Works Association (AWWA)

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22180 Letter Lines: 33 to 34

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: - Protection of underground sources of dr inking water (USDWs) should be the highest priority - "water should trump everything!"

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking wa ter is an important resource to protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall

be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a vi olation of any primary drinking water regulation or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12. It is outside the scope of this rulemaking or EPA’s authority to provide the water sector any type of priority over storage

areas.

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA expects that the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule will prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22181 Letter Lines: 36 to 37

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: - A Class VI regulatory permit system is needed to advance geosequestration demonstration projects.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 a nd to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule c ontains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corre ctive action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plu gging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly addre ss issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize or encourage the use of GS. The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger USDWs.

1Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22182 Letter Lines: 39 to 40

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment: - Geosequestration activities should be prohibited in th e immediate vicinity of sole source aquifers.

Individual Response: The GS requirements are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment by requiring that injection we lls are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and plugged in a manner that does not endanger USDWs. GS in areas that may pose risks to USDWs, as assessed and identified by th e owner or operator and the Director during the site selection process, would not be permitted.

EPA clarifies that §146.82(a)(5) re quires prospective owners or operators to submit information on all USDWs (which would include sole source a quifers) within the AoR. The Director would consider this information and the potential impact of the GS project on any sole source aquifers in determining whether GS is acceptable.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22183 Letter Lines: 42 to 44

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment Code: 4320 2.4.4.1 Injection beneath the lowermos t formation containing a USDW

Comment: - The protection of the lowermost USDWs is of critical importance, and the location of these USDWs should be the pr imary factor in determining if a geosequestration project can be located in the same area.

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking wa ter is an important resource to protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall

be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a vi olation of any primary drinking water regulation or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12.

The GS rule requires operators to submit extens ive information about the site, including the geologic characteristics of the in jection and confining zones, to demonstrate that the injected CO2 will remain within the target formation. The Director must consider this information and the potential impact of the GS project on a ny USDWs when determining whether GS is acceptable at a given site.

In many cases, UIC Directors will have extensive knowledge of which areas are suitable for GS,

but clarifies that it is the re sponsibility of Class VI permit applicants to demonstrate the suitability of a particular site or formation. It is the responsibility of the Director to evaluate the information collected and submitted by the owner or operator to determine whether a permit for GS at the site is appropriate.

2EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endange rment must be a top priority. The Agency

believes that there are limited circumstances wh ere injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as l ong as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishe s a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements for in jection into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conjunction with the permit applica tion submission) to dem onstrate that injection

of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or be tween USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. It estab lishes: 1) requirements specifyi ng information that owners or operators must submit, and Dir ectors must consider, in consul tation with PWSS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for Director-Regional Administrator communication; 3) the waiver i ssuance process; and, 4) additiona l requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above a nd below the injection zone.

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

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22184 Letter Lines: 46 to 47

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

Comment: - Reevaluation of the Area of Review s hould occur annually for the first ten years, and then every five years for the remaining life of the project.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be sufficient to appropriately model plume and pressure front movement, establish conditions for corrective action, and ensure prot ection of USDWs from endangerment. For these reasons, the Agency changed the minimum freq uency 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, and the unique nature of CO2 GS. In addition, the Director has discre tion to require more

3frequent AoR reevaluation if he or she has reason to believe, based on site-specific information, that a five-year reevaluation schedule is not sufficiently protective of USDWs.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22185 Letter Lines: 49 to 51

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: - Although geosequestration might look f easible, especially in oil/gas

formations, there is still much to be known about this technology.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research w ill be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that th e Agency should wait for all cu rrent field research to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Ag ency believes that es tablishing a regulatory framework for the future development and depl oyment of CCS technolo gy provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity doe s not result in endangerment of USDWs.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requiremen ts are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to pr oceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other

research as it becomes available.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22186 Letter Lines: 53 to 54

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: - Congress must address liability is sues under CERCLA, RCRA and Natural

Resource Damage Assessment before this tech nology is commercially deployable.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that overlapping regula tory schemes are undesirable. EPA clarifies that the GS rule requi res owner or operators of Class VI wells to characterize their injection stream prior to injec tion, and throughout the operational lif e of the inject ion facility.

With respect to RCRA, EPA has decided to initi ate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically

to examine the issue of RCRA a pplicability to CO2 streams be ing geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2

GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter r ead that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will

4need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also not es that the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

Comments related to congressional action are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22187 Letter Lines: 56 to 62

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: - It is not realistic to presume that we know enough about carbon separation or geosequestration to draw the conclusion that all new power plants with these new technologies would be carbon neutral in the first few decades of operation.

- More research is needed to answer USDW protection and te chnical questions related to feasibility, infrastructure a nd reliability. This research includes the work from the U.S. Geologica l Survey and other agencies.

Individual Response: The effectiveness of various climate change mitigation technologies, including carbon capture, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where de ployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. As described above, EP A agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology.

Letter ID: 0204 Comment ID: 22188 Letter Lines: 64 to 67

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: We appreciate the expertise from your staff, and the public workshops and meetings that were held by your agency dur ing the deliberative process. We stand ready to work with you and the state regul atory agencies in implementing the new

rule.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that input of and part icipation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital compone nt of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will

continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

5