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 

Bay Mills lrranCommunity 

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 31 2008 
Current 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 5 
Letter 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 CO2; purity standards for CO2 

Comment: The presence of hazardous impurities in the 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 addresses 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 properties. Specifically, the GS rule requires the owner or operator to 

submit data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of 

the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatibility of the 

CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection 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 geochemical 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 relatively 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 streams. 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 pollution 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 finalize the rule. However, EPA acknowledges that, 

1
because all GS in the United States is currently associated with pilot projects, there are many 

unknowns about how GS projects will unfold and 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 plans to use such an approach to ensure that 

USDWs are protected from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace 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 research 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 integral 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 regulatory framework for the future development 

and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede 

industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice 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 sites (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 annual reports (seeking comment) 

Comment: requirements, EPA considered a requirement for owners or operators ofOS sites to 

provide an annual report during the lifetime of the project, 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 requirement 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, the testing and monitoring 

plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughout the life of the project. Owners or 

operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments to the plan or demonstrate 

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

2
of 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 every 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 plan, 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 the 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 for a discussion of EPA's 

final approach to recordkeeping 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 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 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 responsible 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 Agency 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 protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA bases this on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, existing environmental 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 Class VI wells. The GS rule provides the Director 

with discretion to extend the timeframe (e.g., if, after 50 years, monitoring 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-specific, 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 Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC 

timeframe during the post-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements 

at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator 

3
to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC 

timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(c). 

EPA believes that a default post-injection site care 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 accommodate site-specific circumstances and various 

geologic conditions, and addresses commenters’ concerns, while ensuring USDW protection. 

Both approaches will utilize site-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 participation requirements/ use of new 

information technology (seeking comment) 

Comment: 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. 

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 believes that flexibility is important and does not 

want to limit use of public participation and notification technologies developed in the future. 

EPA 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. 

4