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.

### -- Ot,u-p- .Zi 00 T _o 3 q6

Mills lrranCommunity Bay Brimley, Michigan 49715

Grand Traverse Band

of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians

Suttons Bay, Michigan 49682

Hannahville Indian Community

Wilson, Michigan 49896

SaginawChippewa Incillan Tribe

Mt

. Pleasant, Michigan 48858

Little Traverse Bay

Bands of Odawa Indlans

Harbor Springs, Michigan 49740 Keweenaw Bayindian Community Baraga, Michigan 49908

Lac reux Desert

Inaffan Community Vlhatersmeet, Michigan 49969

SaultSte

. Marie

Trlbe of Chippewa Indians

Sault Ste

. Marie, Michigan 49783
Pokagon Band of

Potawatoml Indians Dowagiac, Michigan 49047

Nottawaseppi Band of

Huron Potawatomi

Fulton, Michigan 49052

Gun Lake Band

Door, Michigan 49323 

### INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL

An Equal Opportunity Employer MatchrE-Be-Nash-She (Gun Lake Tribe)

Dorr, Michigan 49323

Huron Potawatomi

Fulton, Michigan 49502

2956 Ashmun Street / Sault Ste

. Marie, Michigan 49783
Phone : (906) 632-6896 Main Fax : 906-632-1810 Health Services Fax : 906-635-4212

December 24, 2008

Water Docket

U .S

. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington D .C

. 20460

Attention Docket # : EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Dear Sir or Madam

: 

# JAN 0 s 2009

Inter Tribal council of Michigan, Inc

. is a non-profit Tribal Consortia representing twelve Federally Recognized Tribes around the State of Michigan

.

Inter Tribal council of Michigan Environmental Service Division (ITCMI ESD) would like to submit

the following comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) geologic sequestration (GS) rule's approach to such matters as : hazardous substances, current studies/research,

annual reports, monitoring timeframe, and public participation

.

Hazardous substances : "Another concern for USDWs is the presence of impurities in the C02 stream

. These impurities, although a relatively small percentage of the total fluid, could include hydrogen sulfide and sulfurous

and nitrous oxides

. Because of the volume of C02 that could be injected, there may be a risk that cocontaminants in the C02 stream could endanger a USDW if the injectate migrates into a USDW

. Additionally, when fluids are injected in large quantities, the potential exists for injection to force native

brines (naturally occurring salty water) into USDWs ." (Page 7 of 51)

The presence of hazardous impurities in the C02 stream are identified as a risk and ITCMI ESD

recommends that the EPA clearly communicate how it will address these impurities often found in the
C02 streams, specifically how such impurities will be removed or their impacts mitigated so as not to endanger USDWs

. 

# DEC 3 1 2008Current Studies/Research : "DOE's 2007 Roadmap (DOE, 2007a) describes DOE-sponsored research designed to gather data on the effectiveness and safety of C02 GS in various geologic settings through the RSCPs

. The Roadmap describes three phases of research, each of which builds upon the previous phase

. During the Characterization Phase (2003 to 2005), the partnerships studied regionally-specific sequestration approaches as well as potentially needed regulations and infrastructure requirements for GS deployment

. During the Validation Phase (2005-2009), approximately 25 pilot tests will be performed to validate the most promising GS technologies, evaluate regional C02 repositories, and identify best management practices for future deployment

. During the Deployment Phase (2008-2017), the partnerships will conduct large volume carbon storage tests to demonstrate that large-scale C02 injection and storage can be achieved safely and economically

. EPA will use the data collected from these projects to support decisions in the final GS rule ." (Page 9 of 51)

The aforementioned deployment phase will not be completed until 2017

. ITCMI ESD believes all research studies should be completed and the results thoroughly understood BEFORE the rule is finalized

.

Annual Reports : "EPA seeks comment on the requirement for electronic reporting in today's proposed rule

. In addition to the above recordkeeping and reporting requirements, EPA considered a requirement for owners or operators of GS sites to provide an annual report during the lifetime of the project, including the post-injection period, regarding the GS operation ." (Page 28 of 51)

ITCMI ESD feels that this is a necessary requirement, and will provide invaluable data for future studies

.

Monitoring Timeframe : "Based on a review

of the three studies used for this preliminary analysis, modeling results indicate that the C02 plume stabilized on the time frame of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection (USEPA, 2008d)

. EPA requests comment on the proposed use of a tentative 50-year fixed timeframe that could be modified at the Director's discretion based on monitoring and modeling data ." (Page 29of 51)

ITCMI ESD would like to see monitoring and modeling data at a minimuml00 years, this will ensure the owner/operator be responsible for remediation efforts for a longer period

.Public Participation :
"EPA encourages permit applicants and permit writers to use the Internet and

other available tools to explain potential GS projects ; describe the technology ; and post

information on the latest developments including schedules for hearings, briefings, and

other opportunities for involvement

. EPA requests comment on adopting the existing requirements for public participation at

40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124 and whether additional requirements should be

included to reflect the availability of new tools for disseminating and gathering

information

. Such tools include cable networks, the Internet, and other new technology

. EPA also requests comment on ways to enhance the public participation process, including engaging communities in the site characterization process as soon as candidate

locations are identified ." (Page 33 of 51)

To further enhance public participation ITCMI ESD suggests that instead of mere encouragement, the permit applicants and permit writer be required to use the Internet

and all other available tools to explain potential GS projects ; describe the technology ; and
post information on the latest developments including schedules for hearings, briefings,

and other opportunities for involvement

.

ITCMI ESD is pleased to provide the aforementioned comments and recommendations concerning the GS rule

. If you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to

contact Greg Shubel, Geologist/Environmental Specialist ITCMI ESD, via phone at (906)

632-6896 ext

. 117, or via e-mail at gshubel@itcmi .org

.

Respectfully submitted,

Greg Shubel Geologist/Environmental Specialist

Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc

. Environmental Services Division

2956 Ashmun St

. Suite A

Sault Ste

. Marie, MI

49783

Cc : Dwight Sargent, ITCMI ESD Director

Sharon L

. Teeple, ITCMI Executive Director

Ross Micham, US EPA Region 5Letter ID: 0284 Commenter: Greg Shubel Organization: Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc

Letter ID: 0284 Comment ID: 25300 Letter Lines: 99 to 103

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO 2; purity standards for CO2

Comment: The presence of hazardous impurities in th e CO2 stream are identified as a risk

and ITCMI ESD recommends that the EPA clearly communicate how it will address these impurities often found in the CO2 streams, specifically how such impurities will be removed or their impacts mitigated so as not to endanger

USDWs.

Individual Response: The GS rule does not set generic purity standards for CO2 injectate streams (e.g., a percent CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresse s the quality and quantity of impurities by requiring owners or operators to submit information on the source of the CO2 and its physical and chemical propertie s. Specifically, the GS rule requi res the owner or operator to submit data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physi cal characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and informati on on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone a nd minerals in both the in jection and the confining

zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information can help the Director determine the potential for geoche mical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution

of formation minerals.

EPA expects that many CO2 streams may be rela tively pure, and research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates are based on limited information, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the various types of CO2 stream s. The concentrations of minor and trace

elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollu tion removal technologies.

Letter ID: 0284 Comment ID: 25301 Letter Lines: 122 to 124

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process

Comment: The aforementioned deployment phase will not be completed until 2017. ITCMI

ESD believes all research studies should be completed and the results thoroughly

understood BEFORE the rule is finalized.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's need for regulatory certainty and

believes it has sufficient data on GS to fina lize the rule. However, EPA acknowledges that,

1because all GS in the United States is currentl y associated with pilot projects, there are many unknowns about how GS projects will unfold an d the practicalities of permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS project . Therefore, EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is appropriate. The Agency plan s to use such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pa ce of GS deployment. EPA believes that an adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to

meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from pilot projects and other re search as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are or necessary.

EPA agrees that continued research will be in tegral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a re gulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technol ogy protects USDWs from enda ngerment and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Noti ce of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802) , in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership si tes (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research.

Letter ID: 0284 Comment ID: 25302 Letter Lines: 130 to 135

Comment Code: 4750 2.7.5 Comments on the merit of a nnual reports (seeking comment)

Comment: requirements, EPA considered a requirement for owners or operators ofOS sites to provide an annual report dur ing the lifetime of the proj ect, including the postinjection period, regarding the GS operation." (Page 28 of 51)

ITCMI ESD feels that this is a necessary requirement, and will provide

invaluable data for future studies.

Individual Response: The final GS regulation retains the reporting requirements as outlined in the proposed rule and does not include a requir ement for an annual report. EPA believes that periodic reevaluation of the AoR, as required at §146.84(e), along with any revisions to the required plans that may be required based on the AoR reevaluation or other data collected during well operations, will promote an ongoing relationship between the permitting authority and the owner or operator. The final GS rule, at §§146.84(c), 146.90(j), and 146.94( d), requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and corrective action plan, th e testing and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response pl an throughout the life of the project. Owners or operators must review each plan and identify n ecessary amendments to the plan or demonstrate

to the Director that no amendment is needed. Th ese reviews must be performed within one year

2of an AoR reevaluation, following any significant changes to the facility (e.g., the addition of monitoring or injection wells), or when required by the Director . In no case can reviews occur

less often than once ev ery five years.

The semi-annual reporting required at §146.91(a) includes both operational data and data required as part of the testing and monitoring pl an, satisfying many of the concerns expressed by commenters who supported the annual report. EPA encourages and expects owners and operators to share monitoring and operating data with th e public voluntarily (e.g., through the Internet. Providing the public with information throughout the GS project will help clear up and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS.

For additional information, please see the final rule and the preamble fo r a discussion of EPA's final approach to reco rdkeeping and reporting.

Letter ID: 0284 Comment ID: 25303 Letter Lines: 139 to 148

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment: "Based on a review of the three studies used for this preliminary analysis, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilized on the time frame of 10-100 years after the cessa tion of injection (USEPA , 2008d). EPA requests comment on the proposed use of a tentative 50-year fixed timefram e that could be modified at the Director's discretion based on monitoring a nd modeling data." (Page 29 of 51)

ITCMI ESD would like to see monitoring and modeling data at a minimum 100 years, this will ensure the owner/operator be re sponsible for remediation efforts for a longer period. ..

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that monitoring for a significant period of time may be necessary in most cases; however, the Agen cy believes that setting a fixed monitoring timeframe of 100 years, as the commenter suggests , is overly burdensome and is not necessary at most GS sites to ensure protec tion of USDWs from endangerment. EPA bases this on a review of research studies, industry reports, existing e nvironmental programs, and evaluation of public

comments.

Instead, the final GS rule retains the 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe, in conjunction with a performance standard, for Cla ss VI wells. The GS rule provides the Director

with discretion to extend the ti meframe (e.g., if, after 50 years, m onitoring data indicates that the CO2 plume may endanger a USDW), or shorten the timeframe (if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the GS project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs), under §146.93(b)(2). Such a demonstration will be site-s pecific, and based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. Thus, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injecti on period based on site-specific da ta, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator

3to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

Letter ID: 0284 Comment ID: 25304 Letter Lines: 166 to 171

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

Comment: To further enhance public participation IT CMI ESD suggests that instead of mere encouragement, the permit applicants and permit writer be required to use the

Internet and all other available tools to explain potential GS projects; describe the technology; and post inform ation on the latest developments including schedules for hearings, br iefings, and other opportunities for

involvement.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the use of new forms of information technology can improve public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies involved. However, EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the public. The Agency belie ves that flexibility is important and does not want to limit use of public participation and no tification technologies de veloped in the future. EPA encourages GS project operators and permitti ng 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 hear ings, 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 applica tions for important information (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and pe rmitting authorities to use similar technologies to keep the public inform ed of GS projects.

4