### 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.4301 Wilson Blvd. • Arlington, VA 22203

‐ 1860 • tel: 703.907.5500 • www.nreca.coop 

### October 15, 2009

VIA ELECTRONIC AND HAND DELIVERY

Water Docket

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)

Public Reading Room 3334

EPA West

1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Re: Comments on Notice of Data Availa bility for Federal Requirements Under

the Underground Injection Control (U IC) Program for Carbon Dioxide

(CO 2 

### ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells (74 Fed. Reg. 44802 (Aug. 31,

2009)), Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

To whom it may concern:

NRECA submits these comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment

(“NODA”) relating to the proposed Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection

Control (“UIC”) Program for Carbon Dioxide (“CO 2 

### ”) Geologic Sequestration Wells. 74 Fed.

Reg. 44802 (Aug. 31, 2009). NRECA submitted comments last December on EPA’s proposal to

regulate CO 2 

### GS under the UIC program. See 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008).

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Asso ciation (NRECA) is the not-for-profit,

national service organization representing nearly 930 not-for-profit, member-owned

rural electric cooperative systems, which serve 42 million consumers in 47 states.

NRECA estimates that cooperatives own and ma intain 2.5 million miles, or 42 percent, of

the nation’s electric distribu tion lines covering three quarter s of the nation’s landmass.

Cooperatives serve approximately 18 million businesses, homes, farms and other

establishments in 2,500 of the nation’s 3,141 counties.

Cooperatives still average fewe r than seven customers per m ile of electric distribution

line, the lowest density in the industry. Low population densities, together with the

issues of traversing vast expanses of remo te and often rugged topography, present unique

economic and engineering challenges for el ectric cooperatives. As well, many co-op

consumers face economic challenges. The service territory average household income

for 786 electric co-ops (93 per cent) falls below the U.S. average household income of

$71,212. The service territory average household income for all electric co-ops is

$61,416.Page 2 of 3



### Of the more than 900 rural electri c cooperatives, 65 rural electr ic generation and transmission

cooperatives (“G&Ts”) generate and transmit power to 670 of the 865 distribution cooperatives.

The G&Ts are owned by the distribution cooperati ves they serve. The remaining distribution

cooperatives receive power direct ly from other generation sources within the elec tric utility

sector. A very significant portion of the power purchased directly by distribution cooperatives

originates from coal-fired generation. As membe r-owned entities, cooperative have no recourse

but to directly pass increased costs for electric generation on to the communities and individuals

they serve.

Eighty percent of the electric power generati ng plants owned by cooperatives, approximately

24,000 MWs, is coal-fired genera tion. NRECA recognizes that the development of a viable

carbon capture and sequestrati on (“CCS”) regulatory program has been cited by many as a

prerequisite to the implementation of ener gy reform initiatives involving carbon reduction

measures on both the federal and state level. EPA predicts that the electr ic power sector “will

most likely be the largest potential market fo r [CCS] technologies,” a nd predicts that CCS

technology could lead to CO2 reductions of appr oximately 80-90% at a single plant. 73 Fed.

Reg. 44354, 44492 (July 30, 2008). NRECA believes that the organization’s decades of

involvement with the management of fossil fuel combustion materials as well as our members’

experiences in the field provide us with a valu able knowledge base and perspective from which

to provide meaningful input on the developm ent of EPA’s UIC regulations for CO2 GS.

At the outset, NRECA applauds EPA’s careful approach to the development of CO2 GS

regulations, including this most recent release of additional data. We urge EPA to continue

developing these regulations with a particular emphasis on insuring that the final requirements

are not so onerous as to effectively make CCS unaffordable. Because the technology

contemplated in the CO2 GS proposal will not be commercially deployed for many years, it is

essential the Final Rule be flexible enough to accommodate developments in information and

technology related to carbon sequest ration. It is critical that EPA develop a regulatory regime

incorporating performance-based st andards in order to allow for site-tailored requirements that

will reflect the vast differences among various potential CO2 GS sites.

NRECA supports EPA’s suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow for CO2 GS

injection above and between underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). 74 Fed. Reg. at

44810. As we stated in our prev ious comments, EPA’s original proposal to define Class VI

injection wells as those used for injection of CO2 beneath the lowermost formation containing a

USDW would preclude injection of CO2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby

restricting or rendering impossible CO2 GS sites in large areas of the country with deep USDWs.

EPA’s initial proposal would also prohibit CO2 in jection into many shallo w formations such as

coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. As the NODA observes, a number of states have

indicated that regions with very deep and laye red USDWs could not undertake CO2 GS projects

because injectors could not comply with the proposed injection depth and well construction

requirements. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44809.Page 3 of 3



### EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal se t forth in the NODA to keep the originally

proposed injection depth requirement but allow owne rs or operators to ap ply for a site-specific

waiver from those injection depth requirements upon making a demonstration that such injection

EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal se t forth in the NODA to keep the originally

proposed injection depth requirement but allow owne rs or operators to ap ply for a site-specific

waiver from those injection depth requirements upon making a demonstration that such injection

can be undertaken in a manner that prevents the endangerment of public health from USDW

contamination. Id. at 44810. NRECA believes th at such a flexible approach would ensure

adequate protection of USDWs while rec ognizing the vast geographic and topographic

differences between potential CO2 GS sites th roughout the country, allowing for maximization

of safe CO2 storage capacity nationwide.

While NRECA supports the flexible injection de pth waiver proposal de scribed above, NRECA

urges EPA to consider requiring th e inclusion of such a waiver pr ovision, rather than leaving the

adoption of an injection depth waiver process to the discretion of th e individual UIC Program

Directors. Id. at 44811. While it is true that deep USDWs do no exist in every state and that

states without USDWs may choose not to grant waivers, inclusi on of a waiver provision would

still leave UIC Program Directors free to declin e to grant any waivers where not necessary or

appropriate. See id. CO2 GS technology is rapi dly developing; because this experience with

and information regarding this technology is gr owing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a

regulatory framework that is flexible enough to respond to developments in the field.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on th is new data and EPA’s new proposal for an

injection depth waiver process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please

contact [name, title] at [phone number/email].

Sincerely,



## /s/

James F. Stine

Environmental PolicyLetter ID: 0348

Commenter: James F. Stine

Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Letter ID: 0348 Comment ID: 27904 Letter Lines: 86 to 96

Comment Code: 1000 1. General Comments on the Notice of Data Availability

Comment: At the outset, NRECA applauds EPA's careful approach to the development of CO2

GS regulations, including this most recent release of additional data. We urge

EPA to continue developing these regulations with a particular emphasis on

insuring that the final requirements are not so onerous as to effectively make

CCS unaffordable. Because the technology contemplated in the CO2 GS proposal

will not be commercially deployed for many years, it is essential the Final Rule

be flexible enough to accommodate developments in information and technology

related to carbon sequestration. It is critical that EPA develop a regulatory

regime incorporating performance

‐ based standards in order to allow for site

‐

tailored requirements that will reflect the vast differences among various

potential CO2 GS sites.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the final rule is based on the most recent GS

‐ related data,

information, and scientific research available. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to

incorporate such data as it implements its adaptive approach to GS rulemaking to incorporate new

research, data, and information about GS. The Agency believes that an adaptive approach provides Class

VI owners or operators the flexibility to use and apply newly developed technologies for GS as they

become available in the future.

EPA agrees with the commenter that a site

‐ specific approach to permitting GS sites is important. The

final rule provides Class VI owners or operators the flexibility to select technologies appropriate for a

specific site and affords the Director flexibility to establish permit requirements on the basis of site

‐

specific characteristics. For additional information on the adaptive approach and site

‐ specific

requirements, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0348 Comment ID: 27905 Letter Lines: 98 to 124

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach

Comment: NRECA supports EPA's suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow forCO2 GS injection above and between underground sources of drinking water

(USDWs). 74 Fed. Reg. at 44810. As we stated in our previous comments, EPA's

original proposal to define Class VI injection wells as those used for injection

of CO2 beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW would preclude

injection of CO2 into zones between and above USDWs, thereby restricting or

rendering impossible CO2 GS sites in large areas of the country with deep USDWs.

EPA's initial proposal would also prohibit CO2 injection into many shallow

formations such as coal seams and basalts. 73 Fed. Reg. at 43512. As the NODA

observes, a number of states have indicated that regions with very deep and

layered USDWs could not undertake CO2 GS projects because injectors could not

comply with the proposed injection depth and well construction requirements. 74

Fed. Reg. at 44809.

EPA addresses these concerns by the proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the

originally proposed injection depth requirement but allow owners or operators to

apply for a site

‐ specific waiver from those injection depth requirements upon

making a demonstration that such injection EPA addresses these concerns by the

proposal set forth in the NODA to keep the originally proposed injection depth

requirement but allow owners or operators to apply for a site

‐ specific waiver

from those injection depth requirements upon making a demonstration that such

injection can be undertaken in a manner that prevents the endangerment of public

health from USDW contamination. Id. at 44810. NRECA believes that such a

flexible approach would ensure adequate protection of USDWs while recognizing

the vast geographic and topographic differences between potential CO2 GS sites

throughout the country, allowing for maximization of safe CO2 storage capacity

nationwide.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site

‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection into non

‐ USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators can seek a waiver of the Class

VI injection depth requirements. The Agency believes the waiver 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.Letter ID: 0348 Comment ID: 27906 Letter Lines: 126 to 136

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach

Comment: While NRECA supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal described

above, NRECA urges EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a waiver

provision, rather than leaving the adoption of an injection depth waiver process

to the discretion of the individual UIC Program Directors. Id. at 44811. While

it is true that deep USDWs do not exist in every state and that states without

USDWs may choose not to grant waivers, inclusion of a waiver provision would

still leave UIC Program Directors free to decline to grant any waivers where not

necessary or appropriate. See id. CO2 GS technology is rapidly developing;

because this experience with and information regarding this technology is

growing rapidly, it is prudent to structure a regulatory framework that is

flexible enough to respond to developments in the field.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowing

for waivers based on regional or state

‐ specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if

they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.

EPA recognizes that GS technologies are rapidly developing. For this reason, the Agency is adopting an

adaptive rulemaking approach. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects,

including information on any Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements, 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.