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 19, 2008

Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC 20460

Re: DTE Energy Comments

- Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390 [73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008)]

DTE Energy submits these comments on the Proposal of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency") to establish the regulatory framework for geologic sequestration (―GS‖) of carbon dioxide (―CO 2 ‖) under the Underground Injection Control (―UIC‖) Program pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"). 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008). DTE Energy is a diversified ene rgy company, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that is involved in the development and management of energy related

businesses and services nationwide. Our largest operating subsidiaries are Detroit Edison and Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. (MichCon). D etroit Edison generates, transmits and distributes electricity to 2.2 million customers in southeastern Michigan. With an 11,080 megawatt system capacity, the company uses the following fuels to generate its electrical

output:

Coal

– 78%

Nuclear fuel

– 18% Natural gas

– 2%

Renewable sources

– 1% Oil and hydroelectric

– 1%

Founded in 1903, Detroit Edison is the largest electric utility in Michigan and one of the largest in the nation.

MichCon is engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission, distribution an d sale of natural gas to approximately 1.3 million customers in Michigan. The company owns and operates 271 natural gas storage wells representing approximately 34 percent of the underground working capacity in Michigan. There is more natural gas storage c apacity in Michigan than in any other state. Founded in 1849, MichCon is one of the nation's largest natural gas utilities. DTE Energy Company One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48225

- 1279DTE Energy Comments

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

December 19, 2008

2 Related businesses include, among other operations, unconventional natural gas exploration, and natural gas storage and transmission

.

DTE Energy is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and endorses the comments filed by each in this docket. The development of cost effective Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technolog y, in concert with regulations that allow flexible yet protective implementation are extremely important to our subsidiary

– Detroit Edison, which has a fuel mix nearly 80% dependent on coal. Coal is domestically abundant and affordable. For those

reasons , along with the need to comply with future regulations requiring the reduction of

CO 2 emissions, we would like to continue to utilize coal in our fuel mix in the future and see CCS as an important element to accomplish that goal. We applaud EPA’s effort and initiative to take the first critical steps to establishing a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the regulatory development process and hope that EPA will consider our comments that we feel will impact our company and also the commercial deployment and public perception about carbon capture and storage.

EEI and USWAG have done an excellent job of articulating the important general and specific technical comments which we anticipate EPA w ill seriously consider. DTE Energy submits the following high level overview and interpretation of the issues that we believe are of utmost importance to the rulemaking.

FLEXIBILITY

Recognizing that large scale sequestration demonstration projects are st ill in the planning and development stages, it is important for EPA to build in flexibility to these regulations to incorporate additional knowledge gained from these demos. DTE Energy participates in DOE’s Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnershi p (MRCSP) and was a host partner for a small scale injection demonstration near Gaylord, Michigan. Ten thousand

tons of CO 2 , captured from one of our gas processing plants, was injected over a two week period in February and March 2008. Data analysis is closely confirming model predictions about the behavior of CO 2 in the formation. Monitoring and data interpretation are still ongoing. Approval has recently been granted to increase the injection to fifty thousand tons of CO 2 . Although this is small scale, as a coal based electric utility, we are encouraged by the progress made to date with this demonstration. However, there are other pieces to the puzzle that still need to fall into place to make this a viable option for ou r continued use of coal in a carbon constrained world. Affordable, efficient and commercially available carbon capture technology is still years away. In addition, because not all existing power plants were built over suitable geologic formations for inj ection we must contemplate construction of a pipeline infrastructure to transport supercritical CO 2 fluid from a power plant to an appropriate injection site.DTE Energy Comments

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

December 19, 2008

3 Another huge issue which has yet to be broached by EPA is that of property and mineral rights ow nership and encroachment. This was cause to slow progress on obtaining an injection permit in Michigan. The EPA Appeals Board ruled that issue was outside the scope of the UIC program but we anticipate this issue will resurface as more sites seek injecti on permits. Someone has to proactively address this difficult issue. With all these issues yet to be resolved, a reasonable conclusion is that commercial deployment of this technology is still years down the road. At this point, we ask EPA to lay out a performance based regulatory framework that can be readily adapted to new information and technology gained from these yet to be started large scale demonstrations. Also, the requirements should not be so restrictive and costly to make carbon sequestratio n not a viable option for implementation.

CHARACTERIZATION OF CO 2

The preamble discussion regarding the characterizations of CO 2 is confusing. The preamble includes an analysis of the potential application of RCRA to CO 2 injection and storage activities that appear to be based upon an assumption that CO 2 is not a ―commodity‖ but a ―waste‖. Yet EPA does not wish to characterize CO 2 as either. As the regulated entity that will want to utilize this technology in the future, it would help us

on several fron ts (unnecessary regulatory burdens, public acceptance not being the least of these concerns) if EPA did reconsider this position and add some clarifying language to the regulations. EPA should revisit the application of RCRA and CERCLA regulation

to the UIC program for CO 2 injection. DTE Energy endorses EEI’s recommendation for

EPA to consider CO 2 injected under the UIC program as either exempted or excluded from regulation under RCRA or CERCLA or adapt performance standards to the injectate that again e xclude RCRA and CERCLA regulation. For example, EPA could appropriately establish a permit condition that injectate must meet Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure or pH standards without reference to material’s waste status.

APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATI ON OF RISKS

DTE Energy fully supports EPA efforts to protect all drinking water sources from contamination. It would facilitate commercial deployment and public acceptance of this technology if EPA would not impose the same requirements on CO 2 injection and storage as is imposed on those materials and wastes that truly do pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) has been successfully deployed in our state for over 15 years without incident to the public o r the environment.

DTE Energy supports the establishment of the new Class VI well category for CO 2 injection but advises EPA not to adapt more restrictions on it than found in the Class IDTE Energy Comments

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

December 19, 2008

4 hazardous waste wells. Many of the construction, mechanical inte grity, monitoring and financial assurance provisions for Class VI are more comprehensive and more strict that those for Class I. EEI comments on the topic suggest: ―EPA should avoid risk management approaches that discourage CCS deployment or create addit ional uncertainty, and to seek where possible to bring greater certainty to the long term obligations and risks associated with a GS project. ― As a regulated entity, wanting to deploy this technology, it would help with securing financial support for the project and with public acceptance if the risks of this technology were more accurately reflected by the regulations. We are concerned that imposing such strict regulations would unduly stigmatize geologic storage.

DIRECTOR DISCRETION

USWAG advises; ―Wh ile directorial discretion is a useful mechanism to ensure flexibility in the Final Rule, such discretion must be clearly defined and limited.‖ DTE Energy endorses this comment and also acknowledges that we have had reasonable

interactions with our state and regional regulators on other UIC wells. We do recognize this is one mechanism to ensure that needed flexibility but there should be some boundaries and limitations as to the extent of discretion provided the Director.

PROPERTY AND MINERAL RIGHTS

The Property Rights encroachment issue delayed the issuance of an injection permit for the MRCSP small scale injection project near Gaylord, Michigan. The permit was ultimately issued but the topic of property rights was never satisfactorily resolved.

Fo rtunately the small quantity injected in this case did not present a property rights issue and the case did not go to litigation. Future larger CCS projects may not go forward in the absence of resolution of property rights

- related issues. As EEI aptly points out: ―Numerous property rights may be implicated by a given CCS project, including ownership interests in the surface property to be used for injection equipment, the subsurface property housing the injection well, the ―pore space‖ in which CO 2 will be stored, and water rights and mineral interests that may exist in the area. Currently, an entity interested in pursuing a CCS project is left to sort out who owns these various interests, an exercise that is a combination of applicable state law

— to the extent any applicable state law exists

— and site

- specific due diligence. This exercise is likely fraught with considerable uncertainty and expense and must be successfully completed in order for a project to begin. ― DTE Energy, along with EE, supports further exploration and discussion of these issues, and EPA’s efforts to solicit public views will serve to raise stakeholder and policy

- maker awareness regarding the importance of their resolution to the successful commercial deployment of CCS.DTE Energy Comments

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

December 19, 2008

5 PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS

In conjunction with the issuance of the injection permit for the MRCSP project, EPA Region V staff required a public information meeting in lieu of a formal public hearing. The information meeting was coordinated by the MRCSP and included a briefing on the injection demonstration and anticipated results. Presentations were conducted by the project hosts, technical experts and academia. The public (which consisted of neighbors surrounding the project and several community advocate s) was provided an opportunity to raise questions and concerns and learn about carbon sequestration. In general, the meeting was a success with the public reassured of the safety of the demonstration and that they were given an opportunity to voice their concerns. The point to be made here is that outreach is crucial to the successful deployment of CCS. DTE Energy supports development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropriate public input on projects. The preamble proposes to apply the public participation provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 25 and 124 to GS projects and seeks comments on the appropriateness and completeness of those provisions for this task. As elaborated by EEI: ―...public participation p rovisions currently existing under the UIC program are appropriately applied to GS projects as well. However, Part 124 includes provisions for public participation that are unique to other programs, including RCRA. Imposition of public participation pr ovisions like those currently applicable under RCRA is unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects ...‖

DTE Energy supports the use of the Internet as an important source of information for the public, and echoes the Agency’s desire to utilize its capabili ties to provide not only for public involvement, but also

– perhaps more importantly as an initial matter

— for public education on the benefits and true risks of CCS projects.

We appreciate your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Skiles W. Boyd /s/

Vi ce President, Environmental Management & ResourcesLetter ID: 0160 Commenter: Skiles Boyd Organization: DTE Energy

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21265 Letter Lines: 66 to 85

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: DTE Energy is a member of the Edison El ectric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and endorses the comments filed by each in this docket. The development of cost e ffective Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology, in concert with regulati ons that allow flexib le yet protective implementation are extremely important to our subsidiary -Detro it Edison, which has a fuel mix nearly 80% dependent on co al. Coal is domestically abundant and affordable. For those reasons, along with the need to comply with future regulations requiring the reduc tion of CO2 emissions, we would like to continue to utilize coal in our fuel mix in the future and see CCS as an important element to accomplish that goal. We appla ud EPA’s effort and in itiative to take the first critical steps to establishing a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration. We appreciat e the opportunity to pr ovide input into the regulatory development process and hope that EPA will consider our comments that we feel will impact our company and al so the commercial deployment and public perception about carbon cap ture and storage.

EEI and USWAG have done an excellent job of articulating the important general and specific technical comments which we anticipate EPA will seriously consider. DTE Energy submits the following high level overview and interp retation of the

issues that we believe are of ut most importance to the rulemaking.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment, EEI’s comment, a nd USWAG’s comment for further details. For

additional information on EPA’s fi nal regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21266 Letter Lines: 87 to 101

Comment Code: 1852 1.4.2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Seque stration Partnerships

Comment: FLEXIBILITY

Recognizing that large scal e sequestration demonstrati on projects are still in the planning and development stages, it is important for EPA to build in flexibility to these regulations to inco rporate additional knowledge gained from these demos. DTE Energy participates in DOE’s Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) and wa s a host partner for a small scale

1injection demonstration n ear Gaylord, Michigan. Ten thousand tons of CO2, captured from one of our gas processing plants, was injected over a two week period in February and March 2008. Data analysis is closely confirming model predictions about the behavior of CO2 in the formation. Monitoring and data interpretation are still ongoing. Approval has recently been granted to increase the injection to fifty thousan d tons of CO2. Although this is small scale, as a coal based electric utility, we are encouraged by the progress made

to date with this demonstration. Howeve r, there are other pi eces to the puzzle

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects a nd resultant data and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational

data and information associated with the seve n RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Te chnology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the pr oposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on A ugust 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Ut ah; and the Pump Canyon Site,

New Mexico.

EPA ORD's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) awarded six Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants in the Fall of 2009 to recipients from major universities and institutions within the scope of the "Integrated Design, Mode ling and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water" research area. These projects, which started in late 2009, include these lead institutions with specific topics of investigatio n: Clemson University will stu dy potential impacts to drinking water aquifers of CO2-rich dissolved brines; the University of Illinois-Urbana will conduct research related to reducing hydrologic and ge ochemical uncertainties associated with CO2 sequestration in deep, saline reservoirs; the Univer sity of Texas at Austin will assess appropriate monitoring approaches at geologic sequestration sites; the University of Utah will integrate design, monitoring, and modeling of GS to assist in developing a practical methodology for characterizing risks to USDWs; Columbia University will conduct laboratory experiments on shallow aquifer systems to improve understanding of geochemical and micr obiological reactions under low pH/high CO2 stress; and Princeton Univ ersity will develop a set of computational

tools to model CO2 and brine movement associated with GS.

The Agency is also tracking operation and techni cal developments of more than three dozen small- and large-scale GS injection projects in the United States and abroad. EPA meets regularly with DOE to discuss its research initiatives, project deve lopments, and "best practices."

Even after finalizing the rule, th e Agency plans to collect and re view data every six years 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.

2Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21267 Letter Lines: 101 to 108

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport)

Comment: to date with this demonstration. Howeve r, there are other pi eces to the puzzle that still need to fall into place to make this a viable option for our

continued use of coal in a carbon constr ained world. Affordab le, efficient and commercially available carbon capture t echnology is still years away. In addition, because not all existing power plants we re built over suitable geologic formations for injection we must contemplate constructi on of a pipeline infrastructure to transport supercritical CO2 fluid from a power plant to an appropriate injection site. Another huge issue which ha s yet to be broached by

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a strong regulatory framework will be important to ensuring that GS is deployed safe ly. EPA believes that the Class VI GS regulation will provide certainty, consistency, and transparency to owners or operators and the public about requirements that apply to GS injection across the United States . The Class VI GS regulation builds upon the long-standing, protective framew ork of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The Class VI GS regulation enhances this existing framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These additional protectiv e requirements include more extensive geologic test ing, detailed computational modeli ng of the AoR and periodic reevaluations, detailed requirements for monitori ng and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injecti on monitoring and site care.

In response to the suggestion that the Agency develop an integrated permitting process that addresses the entire CCS process, EPA clarifie s that the UIC program’s authority under SDWA is focused on ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. The capture and transport of CO2 are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21268 Letter Lines: 108 to 113

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

Comment: appropriate injection site. Another huge issue which ha s yet to be broached by EPA is that of property and mineral right s ownership and encroachment. This was cause to slow progress on obtaining an injection permit in Michigan. The EPA Appeals Board ruled that issue was outside the scope of the UIC program but we anticipate this issue will resurface as more sites seek injection permits. Someone has to proactively address this difficult issue. With all these issues

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking, which focuses on ensuring consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in

3anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EP A clarifies that these issues are under the purview of states a nd any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though state regulati ons. Please see the final rule and preamble for additional information on financial responsib ility for Class VI projects.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21269 Letter Lines: 113 to 115

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS

Comment: Someone has to proactively address this difficult issue. With all these issues yet to be resolved, a reasonable conclu sion is that commercial deployment of this technology is still year s down the road. At this point, we ask EPA to lay

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI re gulations promulgated under Safe Drinking Water Act authority do not promote or encourage the use of GS, but, 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. EP A believes that the Clas s VI GS regulations, which build upon the long-standing, protective, re gulatory framework of the UIC program, will provide the regulatory certaint y and clarity that owners or operators have requested.

EPA acknowledges that there are unknowns associat ed with early GS project deployment and the long term storage of CO2 for GS. For these reasons, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS injection. The Agency will, every six years, collect 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.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21270 Letter Lines: 115 to 119

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards)

Comment: this technology is still ye ars down the road. At this point, we ask EPA to lay out a performance based regulatory framewor k that can be readily adapted to new information and technology gained from these yet to be started large scale demonstrations. Also, the requirements shoul d not be so restrictive and costly to make carbon sequestration not a vi able option for implementation.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will

4encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

To address the comment that the rule should accommodate future technological developments related to GS, EPA adds that it is using an ad aptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulat ion, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review project data on GS research projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documenta tion are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21271 Letter Lines: 121 to 138

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: CHARACTERIZATION OF CO2

The preamble discussion regarding the char acterizations of CO2 is confusing. The preamble includes an analysis of the potential application of RCRA to CO2 injection and storage activit ies that appear to be ba sed upon an assumption that CO2 is not a "commodity" but a "waste". Yet EPA does not wish to characterize CO2 as either. As the regulated entity that will want to utilize this technology in the future, it would help us on several fronts (unnecessary regulatory burdens, public acceptance not be ing the least of these concerns) if EPA did reconsider this position and a dd some clarifying language to the regulations. EPA should revi sit the application of RCR A and CERCLA regulation to the UIC program for CO2 injection. D TE Energy endorses EEI’s recommendation for EPA to consider CO2 injected under th e UIC program as either exempted or excluded from regulation under RCRA or CERCLA or adapt pe rformance standards to the injectate that again ex clude RCRA and CERCLA regulation. For example, EPA could appropriately establish a permit cond ition that injectate must meet Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure or pH standards without reference to

material’s waste status.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that any requirements for the CO2 stream should be clearly identified. Under the final GS rule, owners or op erators will need to determine whether the CO2 stream is hazardous under EPA’s RCRA regulations , and if so, any inject ion of the hazardous CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous wa ste injection well. Conversely, Class VI wells cannot be used for the co-injection of RCRA hazardous wastes (i.e., hazardous wastes that are injected along with the CO2 stream).

EPA received many comments regarding the applicab ility of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Cl ass VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 stream s being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as pa rt of its development of that proposal. The

5Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that propose d rule when it is published. The Agency notes

that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substan ce under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depends entirely on th e composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or gr ound water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “feder ally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential releases from the we ll which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21272 Letter Lines: 140 to 146

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant

Comment: APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATION OF RISKS

DTE Energy fully supports EPA efforts to pr otect all drinking wa ter sources from

contamination. It would fac ilitate commercial deployment and public acceptance of this technology if EPA would not impose the same requirements on CO2 injection and storage as is imposed on t hose materials and wastes that truly do pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. Enhanced Oil

Individual Response: EPA agrees that requirements for GS projects should be tailored to the specific risks associated with carbon dioxide injection for GS. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant and nature of the injectate, its mobility in subsurface formations, and its corrosivity in th e presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the pu rpose of the GS regulatio n is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21273 Letter Lines: 146 to 149

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) has been successfully de ployed in our state for over 15 years without incident to the p ublic or the environment. DTE Energy supports the

6establishment of the new Class VI well category for CO2 inj ection but advises

Individual Response: The Class VI requirements are appropr iate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term stor age (e.g., large injecti on volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity te sting, monitoring, we ll plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the natu re of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21274 Letter Lines: 149 to 156

Comment Code: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: establishment of the new Class VI well category for CO2 inj ection but advises EPA not to adapt more restrictions on it than found in the Class I hazardous waste wells. Many of the construction, m echanical integrity, monitoring and financial assurance provisions for Class VI are more comprehensive and more

strict that those for Class I. EEI comm ents on the topic suggest: "EPA should avoid risk management approaches that discourage CCS deploy ment or create additional uncertainty, and to seek where possible to bring great er certainty to the long term obligations and risks asso ciated with a GS project. " As a

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule are overly stringent. The Agency believes that all of the requirements fo r GS wells are necessary to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protect s USDWs from endangerment.

EPA developed the Class VI regulations in reco gnition that the risks po sed by GS to USDWs are fundamentally different than those associated wi th current injection pr actices regulated by the UIC program, including Class I hazardous waste injection wells. For example, CO2 is more buoyant, less viscous (i.e., more mo bile), and in some cases more corrosive than fluids injected into Class I hazardous waste wells. In addition, the large injection volumes anticipated for GS will likely be much greater than current inj ection practices. Lastly, CO2 movement in the

subsurface is not as well underst ood as fluids currently injected under the Class I program.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further details related to construction, mechanical integrity, monitoring an d financial responsibilit y for Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21275 Letter Lines: 156 to 161

Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate ris k, don't stigmatize CO2

Comment: the long term obligations and risks asso ciated with a GS project. " As a regulated entity, wanting to deploy this technology, it would help with securing financial support for the project and w ith public acceptance if the risks of

7this technology were more accurately re flected by the regulations. We are concerned that imposing such strict re gulations would unduly stigmatize geologic

storage.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and ha ve other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expect s the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care re quirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection fo rmations and protect USDWs.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21276 Letter Lines: 163 to 171

Comment Code: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: DIRECTOR DISCRETION

USWAG advises; "While dire ctorial discretion is a usef ul mechanism to ensure flexibility in the Final Rule, such di scretion must be clearly defined and limited." DTE Energy endorses this comment and also acknowledges that we have

had reasonable interactions with our state and regiona l regulators on other UIC wells. We do recognize this is one mechanis m to ensure that n eeded flexibility

but there should be some boundaries and limitations as to the extent of discretion provided the Director.

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidances for Stat es that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement au thority (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and re quirements. The guidance

will describe areas of Directorial discretion and considerations for how that discretion would be exercised. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21277 Letter Lines: 173 to 194

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

Comment: PROPERTY AND MINERAL RIGHTS

The Property Rights encroachment issue delayed the issuance of an injection permit for the MRCSP small scale injecti on project near Gaylord, Michigan. The permit was ultimately issued but the t opic of property rights was never

8satisfactorily resolved. Fortunately the sm all quantity injected in this case did not present a property rights issue and the case di d not go to litigation. Future larger CCS projects may not go forw ard in the absence of resolution of property rights-related issues. As EEI aptly points out: "Numerous property rights may be implicated by a given CCS project, including ow nership interests in the surface property to be used fo r injection equipment, the subsurface property housing the injection well, th e .pore space. in which CO2 will be stored, and water rights and mineral inte rests that may exist in the area. Currently, an entity interested in pursui ng a CCS project is left to sort out who owns these various interests, an exercise that is a combination of applicable state law--to the extent any applicable state law exists--and sitespecific due diligence. This exercise is likely fraught with considerable uncertainty and expense and must be su ccessfully completed in order for a project to begin." DTE Energy, along with EE, supports further exploration and discussion of these issues, and EPA’s e fforts to solicit public views will serve to raise stakeholder and policy-maker aw areness regarding th e importance of

their resolution to the successful commercial deployment of CCS.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies th at pore space owne rship and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. EPA clarifies that th ese issues are under the purview of states and any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though state regulations.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21278 Letter Lines: 196 to 218

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing p ublic participation requirements (Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment)

Comment: PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS

In conjunction with the issu ance of the injection perm it for the MRCSP project, EPA Region V staff required a public inform ation meeting in lieu of a formal public hearing. The information meeti ng was coordinated by the MRCSP and included a briefing on the injection dem onstration and anticipated results. Presentations were conducted by the pr oject hosts, technical experts and academia. The public (which consisted of neighbors surrounding the project and several community advocates) was provided an opportunity to raise questions and

concerns and learn about carbon sequestration. In gene ral, the meeting was a success with the public reassured of the sa fety of the demonstration and that they were given an opportunity to voice their concerns. The point to be made

here is that outreach is crucial to the successful deployment of CCS. DTE Energy supports development of regulations and policies that will serve to educate the public and provide for appropr iate public input on projects. The preamble proposes to apply the public pa rticipation provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 25 and 124 to GS projects and seek s comments on the appropriateness and completeness of those provisions for this task. As elaborated by EEI:

9"...public participation provisions current ly existing under the UIC program are appropriately applied to GS projects as well. However, Part 124 includes provisions for public particip ation that are unique to other programs, including RCRA. Imposition of public participation provisions like those currently applicable under RCRA is unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects ..."

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC pub lic participation requirements as specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are importa nt and appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of the unique natu re of GS projects, and the antic ipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public in volvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project specific information in the ear ly stages of each GS pr oject can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator a nd the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the permitting process is comple te. Furthermore, the Agency clarifies that the provisions of 40 CFR 124 that apply to RCRA pe rmits do not apply to Class VI UIC permits.

In response to comments regarding the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 25 and 124 applicable under RCRA, EPA clarifies that only the public pa rticipation requirements pertaining to the UIC program apply to Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0160 Comment ID: 21279 Letter Lines: 220 to 224

Comment Code: 5540 2.10.2 Need for additional public partic ipation requirements/ use of new information technology (seeking comment)

Comment: DTE Energy supports the use of the Inte rnet as an important source of information for the public, and echoes th e Agency’s desire to utilize its capabilities to provide not only for public involvement, but also-perhaps more importantly as an initial matter-for public education on the benefits and true risks of CCS projects.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that th e use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and unde rstanding of GS project s and the associated injection technologies involve d. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities

to use the Internet as well as both new and es tablished tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides

GS related information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. EPA currently uses social networking applications for important in formation (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public informed of GS projects.

10