### 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.

### November 10, 2009

Steve Heare

Chief, Drinking Water Protection Division

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 4606M

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Association of State Drinki ng Water Administrators Comments on : Federal Requirements

Under the Underground Injecti on Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells ; Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, 74 Federal

Register 44802 (August 31, 2009), Docket: EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0390

Dear Mr. Heare:

The Association of State Drinking Water Ad ministrators (ASDWA) offers the following

comments in response to the August 31, 2009 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request

for Comment relative to geologi c sequestration wells. Altho ugh the deadline for the NODA has

passed, we would appreciate your cons ideration of these comments.

In particular, ASDWA is offering comments on the portion of the NODA proposal suggesting

that state drinking water program di rectors play a formal role in the approval or disapproval of

applications to inject CO 2 

### into formations above the lowe rmost underground source of drinking

water (USDW). While ASDWA believes that st ate Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS)

programs should be consulted during the subject waiver request proc ess, we believe that a joint

permitting function could be problematic. As an alternative, ASDWA recommends the

Underground Injection Control (U IC) primacy agency be required to notify the director of the

state water resource management and PWSS ag ency(ies) and that th ey be provided the

opportunity to offer comments on the proposed action.

A single state agency should have the final au thority to approve or deny an application.

Providing two separate agencies of state government the same authority over a single permitting

process is potentially inefficient and duplicative. It would also create the potential for one

agency to approve an application while the other pr oposes denial.2



### PWSS Directors and their staffs are less likely to have the requisite UIC permitting and technical

expertise needed to perform such a review. C onsequently, such PWSS agencies would need to

hire additional staff and acquire appropriate training for the st aff. This would require an

additional source of dedicated funding, since state PWSS programs are already severely

underfunded. Further, in order for such PWSS Dir ectors to be a formal part of the review

process, states may need to revise their statut es to provide the necess ary authority to the PWSS

agency.

I light of the foregoing considerations, ASDWA be lieves a single state agency should approve or

disapprove the subject applicati ons – with a requirement for notification and comment by the

water resource management and PWSS agencies . ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to

provide state drinking water program perspectives on this important aspect of the regulatory

process. Please let me know if we can pr ovide any additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

James Taft

Executive DirectorLetter ID: 0392

Commenter: James Taft

Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)

Letter ID: 0392 Comment ID: 28757 Letter Lines: 40 to 68

Comment Code: 3350 3.3.5. Requirement to Submit Waiver Application to UIC and PWSS Program

Directors

Comment: In particular, ASDWA is offering comments on the portion of the NODA proposal

suggesting that state drinking water program directors play a formal role in the

approval or disapproval of applications to inject CO2 into formations above the

lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). While ASDWA believes that

state Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) programs should be consulted during

the subject waiver request process, we believe that a joint permitting function

could be problematic. As an alternative, ASDWA recommends the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) primacy agency be required to notify the director of the

state water resource management and PWSS agency(ies) and that they be provided

the opportunity to offer comments on the proposed action.

A single state agency should have the final authority to approve or deny an

application. Providing two separate agencies of state government the same

authority over a single permitting process is potentially inefficient and

duplicative. It would also create the potential for one agency to approve an

application while the other proposes denial.

PWSS Directors and their staffs are less likely to have the requisite UIC

permitting and technical expertise needed to perform such a review.

Consequently, such PWSS agencies would need to hire additional staff and acquire

appropriate training for the staff. This would require an additional source of

dedicated funding, since state PWSS programs are already severely underfunded.

Further, in order for such PWSS Directors to be a formal part of the review

process, states may need to revise their statutes to provide the necessary

authority to the PWSS agency.

I light of the foregoing considerations, ASDWA believes a single state agency

should approve or disapprove the subject applications

‐ with a requirement for

notification and comment by the water resource management and PWSS agencies.Individual Response: The final GS rule includes a requirement that the UIC Program Director consult

with the PWSS Directors of all states, Territories, and Tribes having jurisdiction within the AoR of a well

for which a waiver is sought as specified in §146.95(b)(2). EPA believes this process is necessary and

appropriate to ensure that water system concerns are considered when evaluating a waiver application.

EPA requires that this consultation be documented to ensure transparent public disclosure of all

information evaluated by the Directors and their respective recommendations. EPA clarifies that the

PWSS director does not have "veto power" over a UIC permitting decision; instead, the role of the PWSS

Director is to ensure consideration of water system and water resource issues where injection into non

‐

USDW formations above the lowermost USDW is being considered. Due to the unique nature of the

injection depth waiver process and in an effort to ensure national consistency and application of the

requirements, the requirement at §146.95(d) indicates that the Regional Administrator makes the final

determination regarding waiver issuance following an evaluation of all site

‐ specific information, public

notice, and recommendations from the UIC Director. EPA believes that UIC Program staff is in the

appropriate position to evaluate the technical details of the waiver application, in concert with the UIC

permit application, to inform the Regional Administrator’s decision. EPA adds that adoption of the

waiver process will remain at the discretion of individual UIC programs.

EPA believes that the consultative communication between the UIC Director and PWSS Directors will

enable a comprehensive evaluation of resource concerns and increase USDW protection. EPA adds that

it does not anticipate that the PWSS director would perform the same level of review as the UIC Director

and anticipates states would determine the level of PWSS review.

EPA clarifies that, pursuant to §146.95(d), the Regional Administrator will make the final determination

whether to issue an injection depth waiver. However, prior to a final decision, the Director must provide

the Regional Administrator with the information collected during the waiver application and the public

notice processes. Based on this information and pursuant to requirements at §146.95(d), the Regional

Administrator will provide written concurrence or non

‐ concurrence regarding waiver issuance. The

Agency clarifies that these requirements are within the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.