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 2 3 , 2008

Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Docket (Mailcode 2822T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460

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

HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

Dear Water Docket:

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) are submitting this joint letter to comment on the pro posed Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geosequestration Wells. AMWA and AWWA together represent drinking water utilities of all sizes that serve more than 90% of the U.S. population. Our

associ ations are very concerned with the effects of climate change on water resources and while we recognize the need for strategies to be developed that address mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHG), we also believe strongly that any strategy deployed for this p urpose should above all else protect our water resources.

M any of the most critical impacts of global climate change will manifest themselves through the hydrologic system, and there is already strong evidence that climate change is having an impact on t he world’s water resources. In 2000, approximately 79% of 54,000 community water systems in the United States were supplied by groundwater (almost 86 million people). In addition, many surface water utilities are currently looking at conjunctive use and/o r groundwater development as adaptation measures (supply portfolio diversification/new storage) to combat climate change. There is the potential for each of these utilities to be impacted by geologic carbon sequestration, simply by the

fact that these uti lities utilize groundwater resources.

This joint comment letter addresses recommendations on four issues that our organizations agree are critical for EPA to consider in finalizing the proposed rule. AWWA and AMWA are also each submitting a more deta iled comment letter that raises these same issues in more detail, as well as additional key points. The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water SM2 These four issues are:

• Protection of drinking water sources and potential future underground sources of drinking water (USDW) is paramount. As a result AMWA and

AWWA recommend that:

o The permitting of l arge

- scale geosequestration projects be delayed until information about Department of Energy (DOE) pilot projects and the effects of carbon sequestration on the subsurface and USDW can be collected and analyzed. We are concerned about the potential for ca rbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to result in unintended, and possibly harmful, consequences to sources of drinking water. Much of the work in CCS arena is still in pilot or pre

- pilot phase at several magnitudes of scale smaller than the sort of pr ojects envisioned under this proposal.

o The final CO2 geologic sequestration regulation should at a minimum

, prohibit the construction of CO2 sequestration wells in any sole source aquifers and restrict any project in the vicinity of any sole source aquifer

.



## • The USDW classification must be reconsidered when siting Class VI wells

. The best sources of drinking water are already being used by utilities. Coupled with challenges resulting from climactic changes, population growth and land development, many u tilities are turning to more challenging groundwater sources such as those that are very deep or have high salinity concentrations, also because the pumping costs for these deep wells are no longer prohibitive given

the lack of sufficient water elsewhere. Some of these new sources could fall outside of the current definition of a USDW, in that the aquifer has a TDS concentration higher than 10,000 ppm. EPA’s proposed rule promises protection of USDWs from endangerment yet there are no anti

- degradation pro visions in the proposed regulation to protect other groundwater supplies, such as those aquifers that are not classified as a USDW but have been, or may be, identified as a future drinking water source. The TDS criterion was written at a time when many advanced water treatment technologies were generally cost prohibitive. In light of the changes in the hydrological and technological landscape, we

recommend that EPA reexamine the classification of USDWs based o n TDS when considering the siting of Class VI geosequestration wells. The potential need to use saline aquifers for potable supply, particularly in water

- stressed areas, should take precedence over the sequestration of carbon dioxide there

.

• Permits shou ld be issued for five

- year periods and not the life of the geosequestration project . In addition, an annual reevaluation of the project’s area of review (AoR) should be conducted for at least the first 10 years of a geosequestration project and then ever y five years for the remaining operating period of the project. CCS is a developing technology and additional data and research findings will be available regularly. Therefore, we recommend that EPA have a plan to update the regulation on a regular basis as well. Having a permit3 renewal schedule built into the rule will allow each state Director to ensure that updates to the regulation are included in permit renewals. AWWA and AMWA also suggest that the permit application process include a review of the site operations to see if any instances of unsafe operation or changes in regulation would require a change in the plant operation.

• Theoretical and observational research must be continue d and must be comprehensive. While the UIC program has a long his tory, the injection of CO2 into the ground is a process that is not well understood. The substance is different and the behavior of the compound under severe pressures and temperatures is not well known. We strongly recommend that EPA and DOE perform bot h modeling (theoretical) and observational research to better understand the carbon sequestration process and the effects of CO2 injection on saline aquifers and the subsurface geology. The results of this research must be made available to permit writers and stakeholders so that improvements to the technology and permitting process can be realized.

AWWA and AMWA appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. The proposed regulation is a good technical starting point given the need to have a federal standard to guide permit writers. However, the technology is still in its infancy and as a result we urge EPA to exercise caution and to ensur e the protection of USDWs and future USDWs from harmful unintended consequences.

Sincerely,

Diane VanDe Hei Tom Curtis

Executive Director, AMWA Deputy Executive Director, AWWA

Cc: Cynthia Dougherty, OGWDW Steve Heare, OGWDWLetter ID: 0206

Commenter: Diane VanDe Hei Organization: Association of Metro politan Water Agencies (AMWA)

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22205 Letter Lines: 26 to 41

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: U.S. population. Our associations are very concerned with the effects of climate change on water resources and while we rec ognize the need for strategies to be developed that address mitigation of gr eenhouse gases (GHG), we also believe strongly that any strategy deployed for this purpose should above all else

protect our water resources.

Many of the most critical impacts of global climate change will manifest themselves through the hydrologic system, and there is alread y strong evidence that climate change is having an impact on the world’s water resources. In 2000, approximately 79% of 54,000 community water systems in the United States were supplied by groundwater (almost 86 milli on people). In addition, many surface

water utilities are current ly looking at conjunctive use and/or groundwater development as adaptation measures (s upply portfolio diversification/new storage) to combat climate change. Ther e is the potential for each of these utilities to be impacted by geologic ca rbon sequestration, simply by the fact

that these utilities utili ze groundwater resources.

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that protecti ng drinking water is important. The primary goal of the UIC program under the SD WA is to protect USDWs. 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 th at contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR §141 or may adversely affect the health of persons (§144.12).

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s goal of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. The pur pose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions . The permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the Class VI GS rule are built on a longstanding protective regulatory fr amework, tailored to the un ique aspects of CO2 GS.

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22207 Letter Lines: 50 to 60

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: - Protection of drinking wa ter sources and potential future underground sources

1of drinking water (USDW) is paramount. As a result AMWA and AWWA recommend that:

o The permitting of large-scale geosequestration projects be delayed until information about Department of Energy ( DOE) pilot projects and the effects of carbon sequestration on the subsurface and USDW can be collected and analyzed.

We are concerned about the potential for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to result in unintended, and possi bly harmful, consequences to sources of drinking water. Much of the work in CCS arena is still in pilot or pre-pilot phase at several magnitudes of scale sm aller than the sort of projects

envisioned under this proposal.

Individual Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience curre ntly exist to develop regulations under the UIC program fo r Class VI wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe underground inj ection practices regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulations, EPA has evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Ener gy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects.

Several large-scale pilot projects are currently underway worldwide to te st the appropriateness and efficacy of various technologies to character ize sites, ensure proper well construction and operation, and monitor injection ac tivities and CO2 plume and pre ssure front distribution. EPA is tracking international GS efforts and is aware of four commercial-sca le projects that are currently in operation: the Slei pner Project in the Norwegian North Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon a nd Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and Ca rbFix (in Iceland).

Activities at Weyburn, In Salah, Sl eipner, and the RCSP sites have been supervised by leading industry scientists and practiti oners. Activities at Weyburn have also been peer-reviewed by the IEA-GHG Programme, an international collabor ative research program that includes the European Commission and OPEC as members. EP A has considered the results of these pilot projects and data from RCSPs in developing the GS rule.

EPA recognizes that technologies will evolve an d improve over time, and for these reasons, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determin e 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: 0206 Comment ID: 22208 Letter Lines: 50 to 51 ; 62 to 64

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

Comment: - Protection of drinking wa ter sources and potential future underground sources

2of drinking water (USDW) is paramount. As a result AMWA and AWWA recommend that:

o The final CO2 geologic sequestration regu lation should at a minimum, prohibit the construction of CO2 seque stration wells in any sole source aquifers and restrict any project in the vicin ity of any sole source aquifer.

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: 0206 Comment ID: 22209 Letter Lines: 66 to 84

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

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

Comment: - The USDW classification must be recons idered when siting Class VI wells. The best sources of drinking wate r are already being used by utilities. Coupled with challenges resulting from climactic ch anges, population growth and land development, many utilities are turning to more challenging groundwater sources such as those that are very deep or ha ve high salinity concentrations, also because the pumping costs for these deep wells are no longer prohibitive given

the lack of sufficient water elsewhere. Some of these new sources could fall

outside of the current definition of a USDW, in that the aquifer has a TDS concentration higher than 10,000 ppm. EPA’s pr oposed rule promises protection of USDWs from endangerment yet there are no anti-degradation provisions in the proposed regulation to protect other gr oundwater supplies, such as those aquifers that are not classified as a US DW but have been, or may be, identified as a future drinking water source. The TD S criterion was written at a time when many advanced water treatment technologies were generally cost prohibitive. In light of the changes in the hydrological and techno logical landscape, we

recommend that EPA reexamine the classi fication of USDWs based on TDS when considering the siting of Class VI geose questration wells. The potential need to use saline aquifers for potable supply, particularly in wate r-stressed areas, should take precedence over the seques tration of carbon dioxide there.

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges commenter concerns about water resources and future water resource availability. However, modifying the definition of a USDW is outside

3the scope of the GS rulemaking. USDWs are defined as aquifers currently being used as sources of drinking water or those capab le of supplying a public water sy stem and they have a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less (§144.3).

The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs in order to ensure a reliable supply of drinking water for the Amer ican public. The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the program’s tr adition of ensuring the protection of USDWs. The permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule built on a long-standi ng protective regulatory fr amework, tailored to the unique characteri stics of CO2 GS.

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22210 Letter Lines: 86 to 87

Comment Code: 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed durati on of Class VI permits (seeking comment)

Comment: - Permits should be issued for five-year periods and not the life of the geosequestration project. In addition, an annual reevaluation of the project’s

Individual Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site car e period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director re view each Class VI permit at l east every 5 years to determine

whether it should be modified, revoked and reissu ed, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s re view will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevalua tion of the project. Specifical ly, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action pl an, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary

amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan

reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing enda ngerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of develo ping and executing the va rious plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedi al response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate fo r–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters ). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22211 Letter Lines: 87 to 90

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

4Comment: geosequestration project. In addition, an annual reevaluation of the project’s area of review (AoR) should be conducted for at least the first 10 years of a geosequestration project and then every five years for the remaining operating period of the project. CCS is a develo ping technology and additional data and

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 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: 0206 Comment ID: 22212 Letter Lines: 90 to 92

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: period of the project. CCS is a develo ping technology and additional data and research findings will be available regul arly. Therefore, we recommend that EPA have a plan to update the regulation on a regular basis as well. Having a permit

Individual Response: The final rule is based on the most recent GS-related data, information, and scientific research available. EPA plans, ev ery six years, to collec t and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determ ine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach provides Class VI owners or operators the flexibility to use and apply newl y developed technologies for GS as they become available in the

future.

Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to th is comment for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22213 Letter Lines: 92 to 97

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed durati on of Class VI permits (seeking comment)

Comment: have a plan to update the regulation on a regular basis as well. Having a permit

renewal schedule built into the rule will a llow each state Director to ensure

5that updates to the regulation are include d in permit renewals. AWWA and AMWA also suggest that the permit application process include a review of the site operations to see if any instances of uns afe operation or chan ges in regulation would require a change in the plant operation.

Individual Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-injection site car e period (144.36(a)). However, it also adds a requirement that the Director re view each Class VI permit at l east every 5 years to determine

whether it should be modified, revoked and reissu ed, terminated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s re view will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevalua tion of the project. Specifical ly, the final rule includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action pl an, the testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary

amendments or demonstrate to the Director that no amendment is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative process and subsequent plan

reevaluations ensure that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing enda ngerment to USDWs.

EPA believes that the iterative process of develo ping and executing the va rious plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, well plugging, and post-injection site care, and emergency and remedi al response) is tailored to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate fo r–GS than establishing a finite permit duration (e.g., five years as suggested by some commenters ). This is preferable to a periodic permit reapplication.

EPA adds that, in addition to the requirement th at the Director review the permit every 5 years, as part of existing requ irements at 40 CFR 144.39, the Director has the authorit y to revise the permit if project operations change, if the Di rector believes based on monitoring or operational data that the project may endanger USDWs, or if the regulations change. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) saying that pe rmit modifications may be require d if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project plans, or a review of the test ing and monitoring results. The Dire ctor may also choose to require minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144. 41, depending on the extent of the plan amendment. All permit modifications, except mi nor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an opportunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened.

Letter ID: 0206 Comment ID: 22214 Letter Lines: 99 to 108

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment: - Theoretical and observational research must be continued and must be comprehensive. While the UIC program ha s a long history, the injection of CO2 into the ground is a process that is not well understood. Th e substance is

different and the behavior of the compound under severe pressures and

6temperatures is not well known. We strongly recommend th at EPA and DOE perform both modeling (theoretical) and observationa l research to better understand the carbon sequestration process a nd the effects of CO2 inj ection on saline aquifers and the subsurface geology. The results of th is research must be made available to permit writers and stakeholders so that improvements to the technology and permitting process can be realized.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia re lated to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA pub lished a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico ). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described tw o studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effect s of CO2 injection on ground wa ter and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

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: 0206 Comment ID: 22215 Letter Lines: 110 to 114

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: AWWA and AMWA appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. The proposed regulation is a good technical star ting point given the need to have a federal standard to guide permit writers. However, the technology is still in its infancy and as a result we urge EPA to exercise caution and to ensure the protection of USDWs and future USDWs fr om harmful unintended consequences.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA recognizes th at injecting larg e volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not pr operly managed, could endanger drinking water sources or have other adverse impacts. EPA agrees that caution is warranted and has, as a result, developed a new well class with requirements tail ored to address the un ique challenges posed by GS and potential risks associated long-term inje ction of CO2. These requirements include the tailored AoR delineation proce ss per §146.84, monitoring that is a ppropriate to GS projects per §146.90, and extended post-injec tion site care per §146.93.

78 As part of its adaptive rulemaking approach, The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine wh ether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary.

Also, as EPA noted above the Agency believes th at sufficient data and ex perience currently exist to develop regulations for Class VI wells. EPA has considered the results of past research in developing the GS rule.