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 (―CO2‖) 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 energy 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). Detroit 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 and 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 capacity 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 48225-1279
DTE 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) 

technology, 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 

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 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 will 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 still 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 Partnership (MRCSP) and was a host 

partner for a small scale injection demonstration near 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 thousand 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. 

However, there are other pieces 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 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 injection we must contemplate construction of a pipeline infrastructure to 

transport supercritical CO2 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 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 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 sequestration not a 

viable option for implementation.

CHARACTERIZATION OF CO2

The preamble discussion regarding the characterizations of CO2 is confusing. The 

preamble includes an analysis of the potential application of RCRA to CO2 injection and 

storage activities that appear to be based 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 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 CO2 injection. DTE Energy endorses EEI’s recommendation for 

EPA to consider CO2 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 exclude 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 CHARACTERIZATION 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 CO2 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 or the environment. 

DTE Energy supports the establishment of the new Class VI well category for CO2

injection but advises EPA not to adapt more restrictions on it than found in the Class I 
DTE Energy Comments

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

December 19, 2008

4

hazardous waste wells. Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, 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 additional 

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; ―While 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. 

Fortunately 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 CO2 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 advocates) 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 provisions 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 provisions 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 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. 

We appreciate your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Skiles W. Boyd /s/

Vice President, Environmental Management & Resources
Letter 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 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) technology, 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 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 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 will 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. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA’s 

responses to this comment, EEI’s comment, and USWAG’s comment for further details. For 

additional information on EPA’s final 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 Sequestration Partnerships 

Comment: FLEXIBILITY 

Recognizing that large scale sequestration demonstration projects are still 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 Partnership (MRCSP) and was a host partner for a small scale 

1
injection demonstration near 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 thousand 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. However, there are other pieces to the puzzle 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects and resultant data 

and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational 

data and information associated with the seven RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy 

and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the 

information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data 

Availability 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: the Escatawpa, Mississippi 

project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; 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, Modeling 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 investigation: Clemson University will study potential impacts to drinking 

water aquifers of CO2-rich dissolved brines; the University of Illinois-Urbana will conduct 

research related to reducing hydrologic and geochemical uncertainties associated with CO2 

sequestration in deep, saline reservoirs; the University 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 microbiological reactions 

under low pH/high CO2 stress; and Princeton University will develop a set of computational 

tools to model CO2 and brine movement associated with GS. 

The Agency is also tracking operation and technical 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 developments, and "best practices." 

Even after finalizing the rule, the Agency plans to collect and review 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 determine if modifications to the requirements are 

appropriate or necessary. 

2
Letter 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. However, there are other pieces 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 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 injection we must contemplate construction of a pipeline 

infrastructure to transport supercritical CO2 fluid from a power plant to an 

appropriate injection site. Another huge issue which has yet to be broached by 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a strong regulatory framework will be important to 

ensuring that GS is deployed safely. 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 framework 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 protective requirements include more 

extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic reevaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure 

front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

In response to the suggestion that the Agency develop an integrated permitting process that 

addresses the entire CCS process, EPA clarifies 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 has yet to be broached by 

EPA is that of property and mineral rights 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 provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in 

3
anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that these 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. Please see the final rule and preamble for additional 

information on financial responsibility 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 conclusion is that commercial deployment of 

this technology is still years down the road. At this point, we ask EPA to lay 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI regulations 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 requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the 

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA believes that the Class VI GS regulations, 

which build upon the long-standing, protective, regulatory framework of the UIC program, will 

provide the regulatory certainty and clarity that owners or operators have requested. 

EPA acknowledges that there are unknowns associated 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 determine 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 (performance-based standards) 

Comment: 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 sequestration not a viable 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 flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

4
encourage use of the most appropriate technologies 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 adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC 

Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, 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 documentation 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 issues (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: CHARACTERIZATION OF CO2 

The preamble discussion regarding the characterizations of CO2 is confusing. 

The preamble includes an analysis of the potential application of RCRA to CO2 

injection and storage activities that appear to be based 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 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 CO2 injection. DTE Energy endorses EEI’s recommendation 

for EPA to consider CO2 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 exclude 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. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that any requirements for the CO2 stream should be clearly 

identified. Under the final GS rule, owners or operators will need to determine whether the CO2 

stream is hazardous under EPA’s RCRA regulations, and if so, any injection of the hazardous 

CO2 stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste 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 applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to 

CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. 

As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine 

the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams 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 part of its development of that proposal. The 

5
Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and 

recommends that the commenter read that proposed 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 substance 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 the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental 

media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under 

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally 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 well 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 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 CO2 

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 

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 the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of 

the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation 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 deployed in our state for over 15 years 

without incident to the public or the environment. DTE Energy supports the 

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

Individual Response: The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature 

and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection 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 testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and 

site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature 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 injection but advises 

EPA not to adapt more restrictions on it than found in the Class I hazardous 

waste wells. Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, 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 

additional uncertainty, and to seek where possible to bring greater certainty to 

the long term obligations and risks associated 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 for GS wells are necessary to ensure that GS is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA developed the Class VI regulations in recognition that the risks posed by GS to USDWs are 

fundamentally different than those associated with current injection practices regulated by the 

UIC program, including Class I hazardous waste injection wells. For example, CO2 is more 

buoyant, less viscous (i.e., more mobile), 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 injection practices. Lastly, CO2 movement in the 

subsurface is not as well understood 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 and financial responsibility for Class VI wells. 

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

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

Comment: 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 

7
this technology were more accurately reflected by the regulations. We are 

concerned that imposing such strict regulations 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 have other adverse impacts. 

However, with proper site selection, 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 expects the tailored permitting, siting, 

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to 

prevent leakage from injection formations 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 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. 

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidances for States that describe the process of 

applying for and receiving primary enforcement authority (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 requirements. 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 injection project near Gaylord, Michigan. The 

permit was ultimately issued but the topic of property rights was never 

8
satisfactorily resolved. Fortunately 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 CO2 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 sitespecific 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. 

Individual Response: As described above, 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. EPA clarifies that these 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 public participation requirements 

(Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment) 

Comment: 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 advocates) 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: 

9
"...public participation provisions 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 provisions like those currently 

applicable under RCRA is unnecessary and undesirable for GS projects ..." 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as 

specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are important and appropriate for GS projects. In 

addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest 

in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public 

with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project 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 and the permitting agency to address the public's 

concerns before the permitting process is complete. Furthermore, the Agency clarifies that the 

provisions of 40 CFR 124 that apply to RCRA permits 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 participation 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 participation requirements/ use of new 

information technology (seeking comment) 

Comment: 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 

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 the use of new forms of information 

technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated 

injection technologies involved. 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 established 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/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. EPA currently uses social 

networking applications for important information (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