### 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.

### October 15, 2009

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:

Consumers Energy (CE) 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) . CE is a Michigan based generation

company with a coal baseload generation capacity of 2,872 MW a nd the planned installation of

approximately 930 MW of gross el ectrical output in 2017 with the addition of an Advanced

Supercritical Pulverized Coal un it currently in air permitting. With the advent of energy reform

initiatives for greenhouse gas emi ssions, CE may be capturing and in jecting signific ant quantities

of CO 2 

### under EPA’s proposed UIC program for Class VI CO 2 

### GS wells. The proposed rules

could have a direct and costly impact on our opera tions and ratepayers, so it is imperative that

the rulemaking establish a cost-e ffective and environmentally s ound regulatory program to cover

the range of operations from this developing technology. CE 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).

CE supports EPA’s careful approa ch to the development of CO 2 

### GS regulations,

including this most recent release of additional data. Because the technology contemplated in

the CO 2 

### GS proposal will not be commercially deploye d 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 crit ical that EPA develop a regu latory regime incorporating

performance-based standards in order to allow fo r site-tailored requirements that will reflect the

vast differences among various potential CO 2 

### GS sites.

CE also supports EPA’s suggestion to adopt a flexible waiver process to allow for CO 2 

### GS injection above and between underground sour ces of drinking water (USDWs). 74 Fed. Reg.

at 44810. As stated in the NODA, EPA’s original pr oposal to define Class VI injection wells as

### Water Docket DRAFT

October 15, 2009

Page 2

those used for injection of CO 2 

### beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW (73 Fed.

Reg. at 43511) would preclude injection of CO 2 

### into zones between and above USDWs, thereby

restricting or rendering impossible CO 2 

### GS sites in large areas of the country with deep USDWs.

74 Fed. Reg. at 44808. The propos al would also prohibit CO 2 

### 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 indicat ed that regions with very d eep and layered USDWs could not

undertake CO 2 

### 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 propos al set forth in the NODA to keep the

originally proposed injection depth requirement but allow owners or operators to apply for a sitespecific waiver from those injection depth requ irements upon making a demonstration that such

injection can be undertaken in a manner that pr events the endangerment of public health from

USDW contamination. Id . at 44810. CE believes that such a flexible approach would ensure

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

differences between potential CO 2 

### GS sites throughout the countr y, allowing for maximization of

safe CO 2 

### storage capacity nationwide.

While CE supports the flexible injection depth wa iver proposal described above, we urge

EPA to consider requiring the inclusion of such a waiver provision, ra ther 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 US DWs do no exist in ev ery 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 . CO 2 

### GS technology is rapidly developing; because this experience with and

information regarding this technol ogy is growing rapidly, it is pr udent to structure a regulatory

framework that is flexible enough to re spond to developments in the field.

* * * * *

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this new data and EPA’s new proposal for

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

contact John Gulvas, Senior Environmental Planner at 517 788 1285

Sincerely,

John A. GulvasLetter ID: 0356

Commenter: John A. Gulvas

Organization: Consumers Energy (CE)

Letter ID: 0356 Comment ID: 28087 Letter Lines: 52 to 59

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

Comment: CE supports EPA’s careful approach to the development of CO2 GS regulations,

including this most recent release of additional data. 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: 0356 Comment ID: 28088 Letter Lines: 61 to 83

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

Comment: CE also 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 stated in the NODA, EPA’s original proposal

to define Class VI injection wells as those used for injection of CO2 beneaththe lowermost formation containing a USDW (73 Fed. Reg. at 43511) 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.

74 Fed. Reg. at 44808. The 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 can be undertaken in a manner that

prevents the endangerment of public health from USDW contamination. Id. at

44810. CE 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: 0356 Comment ID: 28089 Letter Lines: 85 to 95

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

Comment: While CE supports the flexible injection depth waiver proposal described above,we urge 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 no 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.