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 Drinking Water Administrators Comments on: Federal Requirements 

Under the Underground Injection 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 Administrators (ASDWA) offers the following 

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

for Comment relative to geologic sequestration wells. Although the deadline for the NODA has 

passed, we would appreciate your consideration of these comments. 

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. 
2

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. 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 provide any additional information on this subject. 

Sincerely, 

James Taft 

Executive Director 
Letter 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.