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 25th, 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 SM
December 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 Association
Letter ID: 0204 

Commenter: Thomas Curtis 

Organization: American Water 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 drinking water (USDWs) should be the 

highest priority - "water should trump everything!" 

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking water 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 violation 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 injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are 

protected from endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, 

geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, 

mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure 

of GS wells that directly address 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. 

1
Letter 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 the immediate vicinity of 

sole source aquifers. 

Individual Response: The GS requirements are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from 

endangerment by requiring that injection wells 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 the owner or operator and the Director during the 

site selection process, would not be permitted. 

EPA clarifies that §146.82(a)(5) requires prospective owners or operators to submit information 

on all USDWs (which would include sole source aquifers) 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 lowermost formation containing a USDW 

Comment: - 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. 

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking water 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 violation 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 extensive information about the site, including the 

geologic characteristics of the injection 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 any 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 responsibility 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. 

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

believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be 

performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The 

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

the Class VI injection depth requirements for injection 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 application submission) to demonstrate that injection 

of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or between USDWs can be done in a manner that is 

protective of USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying information that owners or 

operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors; 2) 

procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for Director-Regional Administrator 

communication; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional requirements that apply to 

owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to 

ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone. 

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 will ensure USDW protection while providing 

flexibility to UIC Program Directors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for 

GS. The Agency believes this 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 that 

high quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs. For 

additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as 

EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment. 

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

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: - 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. 

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 protection of USDWs from endangerment. For these 

reasons, the Agency changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation at §146.84(e) 

from 10 years to at least every 5 years in the final GS rule. EPA believes 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 discretion to require more 

3
frequent 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 feasible, especially in oil/gas 

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

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS 

technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be 

complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory 

framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework 

for injecting CO2 so that the activity does 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 regulating 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 appropriate documentation are being collected, and to 

determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive 

approach will allow regulatory development to proceed 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 issues (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

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

Resource 

Damage Assessment before this technology is commercially deployable. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that overlapping regulatory schemes are undesirable. EPA 

clarifies that the GS rule requires owner or operators of Class VI wells to characterize their 

injection stream prior to injection, and throughout the operational life of the injection facility. 

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

to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, 

including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 

GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that 

proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate 

rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. 

The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will 

4
need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes 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 technical questions 

related to feasibility, infrastructure and reliability. This research includes 

the work from the U.S. Geological 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 deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects 

USDWs from endangerment. As described above, EPA 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 during the deliberative process. We stand 

ready to work with you and the state regulatory agencies in implementing the new 

rule. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of 

stakeholders is a vital component 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