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.Letter ID: 0175 Commenter: Pamela Faggert Organization: Dominion

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23512 Letter Lines: 73 to 93

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: Dominion has participated in the devel opment of industry comments and positions with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), and supports the views expr essed therein. Additionally, Dominion is a member of the American Gas Association (AGA) and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and shares many of the concerns and opinions of these organizations.

While supportive of the comments of our industry peers and associations, Dominion's comments are shaped by se veral factors unique to Dominion:

(a) Dominion has substantial coal fired assets in the northeast U.S. where geology is less conducive to GS in to conventional formations;

(b) Dominion has extensive underground natu ral gas storage assets in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York; and,

(c) Likely target formations for GS in Dominion's regulated territory are unmineable coal seams and depleted coal bed methane wells, including enhanced gas recovery from coal seams. These targ et formations, while representing only a small fraction of the total US projected storage capacity, are the most viable target formation for a signifIcant portion of Dominion's CO2 sources.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that depleted oil a nd gas reservoirs associated with ER operations may be used for CO 2 storage and that these sites ma y be some of the first sites where commercial-scale GS is deployed. The rule clarifies that Class VI requirements apply to any CO2 injection project (regardless of formation type) when the purpose ofthe project is longterm storage. Please see the remainder of EPA' s responses to this comment, EEI’s comment,

AGA’s comment, and USWAG’s comment for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach please see the final rule and the discussion of site-selection criteria and target formations for GS in th e preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23513 Letter Lines: 95 to 106

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Guiding Principals

1Addressing climate change will require a full portfolio of options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Dominion believe s that carbon capt ure and storage (CCS) is an essential component of any future climate change mitigation policy and, accordingly, commends EPA for ini tiating the rulemaking process.

Dominion supports the development of clear , flexible, scalable and appropriate regulations that will faci litate investment and development of CCS technology while assuring appropriate protections against adverse imp acts to underground sources of drinking water (U SDW). Dominion feels that the proposed regulations achieve these goals in many respects.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to redu ce CO2 emissions. EPA recognizes the importance of providing clear, flexible, sc alable, and appropriate regulatio ns, and believes that the GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and the public by providing consistency in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about what requirements apply to owners or

operators.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to th is comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23514 Letter Lines: 112 to 128

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: Promotion of CCS

The Agency rightly acknowledges that CCS is a key climate change mitigation technology, and the proposed rules should s upport its developmen t. The UIC rules should be designed to facilitate, and not hinder, the successful commercial scale deployment of CCS. As such the rulemaking necessitates a host of regulatory approaches: recognition that early adopters are likely to be EOR operators; grandfathering of existing wells which facili tates development of GS wells; appropriate characterization of CO 2 and potential risks; avoidance of unnecessary stigmatization of GS; a recognition of the diversity of target formations (including especially unmin eable coal seam formations); an appreciation for the consequences of pub lic perception; avoidance of one-size fits-all approaches; and regulatory cert ainty through limits and guidelines to

Directors' discretion. Furthermore, a successful CCS regime requires the

avoidance of conflicts to the extent possible. Accordingly, GS should be promoted at sites where it has minima l risk to other uses of underground formations, such as natural gas storage.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's

2responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or encourag e the use of GS; rather, its purpose is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23515 Letter Lines: 130 to 138

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

Comment: Flexibility

EPA states throughout the proposal that fl exibility in the ap plication of the rule is essential to balancing the prot ection of USDW against the need to facilitate CCS development and commerc ialization. Accordingly, Dominion urges EPA to recognize that no two GS sites ar e identical and that requirements that may be appropriate for one site may be prohibitive for another site. While directorial discretion is a useful mechanism to ensure flexibility in the Final

Rule, such discretion must be clearly defined and limited.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on site-specific factors. The GS ru le requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demons trate that a site is suitable for GS. Additionally, many of the permit require ments for GS wells are established through individualized site-specific pl ans for AoR and corrective actio n, testing and monitoring, and injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS rule includes a balance of speci fic criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of

Directorial discretion and consider ations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, site-specific aspects of each project, while prov iding consistency in permitting across the U.S.

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 issu es on developing GS regul ations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The gui dance will describe areas of

Directorial discretion and consid erations for how that discre tion 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: 0175 Comment ID: 23516 Letter Lines: 140 to 150

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

3Comment: Adaptability

The Agency should strive to anticipa te future statutory and regulatory developments in the climate change arena so that any rulemaking has a reasonable chance of facilitating such developments. EPA can and should consider how its UIC rulemaking will fit with foreseeable features of potential future regimes and how rules can be drafted to complement such features to the extent possible. Additionally, because it is difficult to know at this point what methods or technology will be developed for injection a nd long-term storage of CO2, coupled with projected demands for capacity, EPA should not prematurely preclude the use of specific types of sites or methods for Class VI CO2 injection.

Individual Response: EPA is using an adaptive appro ach 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: 0175 Comment ID: 23517 Letter Lines: 152 to 162

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: Specific Comments on the Proposal

1. Creation of Class VI Category

Dominion supports the creati on of a new class of injection wells for CO2 injection and storage. Establishing a ne w Class VI class enables appropriate regulations based on the unique characteris tics of CO2 sequestration, namely the buoyancy, corrosivity, and antic ipated volumes. Including CO2 GS in the existing Class I, Hazardous Waste regulations would unnecessarily stigmatize CCS, creating public perception problems and would be ina ppropriate for protection of

USDW.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 a nd to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule c ontains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corre ctive action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plu gging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly addre ss issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS. EPA also agrees that Class I regulations are not appropriate to fully addr ess GS wells and would not necessarily be pr otective of USDWs.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23518 Letter Lines: 164 to 171

4Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment: 2. Siting

Dominion agrees that proper site selecti on is critical to a successful GS project. Appropriate siting can minimize or eliminate risk of potential threats to USDW that GS may pose. However, seve ral of the contemplated requirements and

restrictions in the Dominion Comments on Proposed Regulation of CO2 Injection Wells proposal are unnecessary for the prot ection of USDW and could discourage the development of CCS.

Individual Response: EPA believes that a detailed geologic al site characterization (required under §146.82) is essential to ev aluating the presence and adequ acy of the various geologic features necessary to receive and confine inje cted CO2 for GS. The requirements for geologic

site characterization are base d on a long standing UIC regulatory framework developed to address specific risks to USDWs posed by injection. The Clas s VI GS requirements are tailored so that they are appropriate for the unique nature of injecting large volume s of CO2 into a variety of geological formations for long-term storage.

EPA disagrees that any of these protective re quirements are unnecessar y, and clarifies that waiving any of the requirements would not be a cceptable. The GS regulation allows flexibility where appropriate. Certain requirements (e.g., the need to characterize additional confining layers) are at the Director's discretion (§146.83(b)).

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23519 Letter Lines: 173 to 194

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost

USDW

Comment: a. Limitations on Receiving Formations above the lowermost USDW

The proposal contemplates injection only below the lowermost USDW. Such a prohibition is troublesome for several reas ons. First, it is unnecessary for the protection of USDW. There are numerous other safeguards affording necessary protections of USDW when demonstrated appropriately in the permitting process (e.g. injection zone characteristics, geology, modeling, confining zone, depth, fluid composition, etc). Secondly, such a categorical exclusion may unnecessarily eliminate vast storage formations that may be the only geographically feasible GS s ite for some sources of CO 2 (e.g. unmineable coal seams, experimental formations, etc). Th ird, it is likely to hamper commercial development of CCS, as EOR wells are like ly the early adopters of GS wells and

some EOR wells would be excluded from tran sitioning to Class VI wells with such a prohibition. Lastly, it is likely to create unfavorable public perception issues if GS is treated so categorical ly similarly to Class I Hazardous Waste

wells.

5There should be no blanket prohibi tion against inject ion into any approved geologic zone even if abov e the lowermost USDW. There are circumstances where this may be perfectly appropriate and safe. The decision needs to be site specific and based on evaluation of local geology and other factors.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injecti on into non-USDW formations a bove and/or between USDWs.

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC program Directors and owne rs or operators who undertak e CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to co ncerns about local and re gional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by th e proposed injection depth require ments; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) a llows for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aqui fer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth va riability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking wa ter resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient qua ntities to supply drinking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

EPA agrees that proper siting, monitoring, and c ontainment capacity are cr itical elements of Class VI injection for GS. However, the Agency also believes that in jection into non-USDW formations above and between USDWs presents unique challenges related to movement of CO2 in the subsurface, which requires a unique approach to ensure that USDWs are protected. Therefore, the Agency believes that additional requirements are appropriate and necessary for wells that would inject into non- USDWs above and be tween USDWs.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23520 Letter Lines: 196 to 212

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones (seeking comment)

Comment: b. Requirements for Secondary Containment

The Agency is considering granting disc retion to the Direct or to require "additional zones that will impede ver tical fluid movement..." Such broad discretionary authority is unnecessary for the same reasons that limitations of injection to formation below the lo wermost USDW are unnecessary. This discretionary authority is likely to have a negative affect on GS into unmineable coal seams and for storage through existing EOR wells. In the event

6the Agency elects to retain this authorit y, we urge EPA to modify the proposal to include clear guidelines in order to pr ovide some amount of certainty for CCS operators and investors. Additionally, clear guide lines for exercising requirements for secondary containment would safeguard against what is discretionary authority on paper from beco ming default requirements in practice.

Secondary confinement should not be a requirement. Such a requirement would eliminate good and sound storag e sites and reduce ultimate capacity of the country to store CO2.

Individual Response: EPA retains the requirement to iden tify additional containment/confining zones, if required by the Di rector, as proposed (e.g., §146.83(b)). The Agency's decision is supported by commenters representing states, wate r associations, and an electric utility who assert that these requirements (at §146.83(b)) pr omote a flexible, risk-based, site-specific approach to characterizing and perm itting a site for GS projects.

The Agency believes that providing the Director di scretion will allow consideration of a range of sites for GS, based on site-specific conditions and ensure USDW protection. EPA believes that requiring appropriate site ch aracterization by the owner or operator (under §146.82) and providing an appropriate de gree of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic data will afford the greatest protec tion of USDWs from endangerment.

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendations regard ing characterizing the region al geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing th e necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confin ing zone. EPA expects that this guidance will assist permit writers in making an objective deci sion about requiring additional confining layers. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23521 Letter Lines: 214 to 244

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

Comment: c. Impact of GS well siting on Underground Natural Gas Storage

As a general matter, EPA should ensure that Class VI permits not inappropriately interfere with other pre-existing s ubsurface interests and operations. Dominion's interest in the rulemaking is from the perspective of both an owner/operator/contractor of CCS and a poten tially affected party as an operator of an extensive network of undergr ound natural gas storage. The sole responsibility of the UIC Program is to provide protections for existing and future USDW. Little protections are a fforded for other underground resources,

7however. The rulemaking unambiguously leaves these concerns to the individual states, irrespective of primacy status. The rulemaking's silence with regard to protections for underground natural gas stor age formations is cause for concern to the natural gas industry.

Gas storage operators have particular expertise rega rding their natural gas storage fields, and can help prevent pr oblems if EPA helps to ensure their participation in the process of the site evaluation and construction of GS wells in natural gas storage fields. The Agen cy should authorize the Director to

ensure the coordination be tween natural gas storage operators and GS well owners/operators in circumstances wher e the GS construction will occur in natural gas storage fields. Such coor dination can involve, for example, obtaining input from the natural ga s storage operators on the unique

circumstances associated with the natura l gas storage field where the GS well

will be constructed. To assist in this process, natural gas storage field operators should have ready access to GS well records, well logs and cementing records for any GS construction activity th at occurs in a natural gas storage

field.

EPA should authorize Directors to en sure coordination between natural gas storage operators and GS well ow ners/operators in circumstances where the GS construction will occur in natural gas storage fields.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights ar e 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 i ssues, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though state regula tions. The Class VI GS rule is designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endange rment through proper permitting, siting, well construction, operation, monitoring, and cl osure of Class VI GS projects.

As part of the permit application process, pros pective operators of Class VI GS wells must submit data on other activities subject to environm ental permitting (e.g., oil or gas fields), mines,

and a tabulation of all wells in the area of revi ew. This information, incl uding data on any other injection or production activities in the area would be taken into c onsideration by the Director in evaluating the appropriateness and safety of the proposed site.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23522 Letter Lines: 246 to 276 ; 425 to 427

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment: d. Sequestration in Unmineable Coal Seams

The proposed rule prematurely concludes th at "There are a numb er of technical challenges related to use of coal seams for GS.... [and] as a result, EPA is proposing to preclude the inje ction of CO2 for long-term storage into coal seams where they are above the lowermost USDW".

8According to the attached white paper (Footnote l) by the Director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Resear ch at Virginia Polytechnic and State University (VCCER), Dr. Michael Karmis, et al. [SEE EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0175.PDF FOR THIS DOCUMENT], there is ample evid ence that coal seams are a viable

formation into which CO2 can be economica lly, safely and securely sequestered with many tangible advantages over salin e aquifers and other major geologic sinks. In contrast to storage in deep sa line aquifers, CO2 in coal seams clings to the molecular structure of coal by th e process of adsorption, which minimizes the mobility and thus risk of leakage. Furthermore, coal can hold large quantities of gas at pressures less than 500 psi, which sign ificantly helps minimize the cost of compression during injection operations.

Moreover, in many coal basins, where many CO2 emitters are located, viable saline aquifers and oil rese rvoirs are not present and coal is the only viable medium for CO2 storage. The extensiv e existing infrastructure should be recognized as a resource for early investments in sequestration.

The estimated capacity of coal seams iden tified in the DOE "Carbon Sequestration

Atlas of the United States and Canada", though only a fraction of that of other formations, represents over 22 ye ars of total US CO2 emissions.

Accordingly, coal seams above the lowe rmost USDW should not be summarily dismissed as a viable injection forma tion, provided it can be shown that a project is sufficiently protective of USDW.

Footnote 1: Michael Karmis, VA Tech; Ni no Ripepi, VA Tech; and Jack Pashin, Geologic Survey ofAlabama, "The Case fo r Carbon Sequestration in Coal Seams",

December, 2008.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that site-suitability for GS is dependent on a number of factors and that many formation types may be suitable for GS. EPA agrees that GS into

unmineable coal seams has the potential to allow sequestration while ensuring USDW protection from endangerment, as described by commenter s citing the process of enhanced methane recovery. The final GS rule doe s not preclude injection into un mineable coal seams provided owners or operators can demonstr ate that GS can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Agency clarifies that ow ners or operators of Class VI wells used for injecting CO2 into unmineable coal seams are s ubject to the same site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, pos t-injection site care and site closure requirements that are required of projects injecting into other formation types.

EPA clarifies that the final rule requires that injection for GS be into non-USDWs below the lowermost USDW; however, owners or operators may apply for a waiver from this requirement, as described in §146.95. For more information, see the discussion of waivers in the preamble to

the final rule.

9Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23523 Letter Lines: 278 to 294

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation fre quency (seeking comment)

Comment: 3. Area of Review

Unlike existing UIC classes of wells, the Ar ea of Review (AoR), the area within which all pre-existing wells must be identi fied and studied to determine whether they have been properly completed or plugged, will be determined on a sitespecific basis using computational fluid flow models. Whereas Dominion supports the site-specific determination for AoR, we urge EPA to eliminate the arbitrary 10-year maximum between periodic reevalua tion of the AoR. Tying reevaluation to the triggering of appropriate circumstan ces will provide equi valent protection

of USDW while also ensuri ng that those projects posi ng greater relative risks receive greater scrutiny through more stri ngent reevaluation requirements while those projects posing fewer relative risk s are relieved of costly regulatory

burdens.

The Agency should avoid requiring an arbitrary 10 year maximum between periodic reevaluations of the AoR and instead should rely on site specific circumstances to determine periodic review schedules.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirement at §146.84(e) for a periodic AoR

reevaluation is arbitrar y. EPA proposed the ten-year frequenc y based on input from stakeholders and experts at the technical workshops on "Geo logical Considerations and AoR Studies" and "Modeling and Reservoir Simulation for Geologic Carbon Storage." EPA also requested comment on the ten-year frequency. In the pr eamble to the proposed rule, EPA identified benefits to periodically r eevaluating the AoR, including allowing refinement to the AoR

delineation based on real-world conditions and monitoring results , increasing confidence in the modeled predictions, and targeting monitoring in t hose areas subject to the greatest potential risk.

Based on the comments received (including those by water associati ons, an energy company, associations, industries, states, and envir onmental groups), EPA has changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation from 10 years to at least every 5 year s. EPA believes that this revised frequency addresse s commenters' concerns about th e inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the emerging nature of GS technology, risk-b ased targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique nature of CO2 GS.

EPA adds that the GS rule at §146.84(e) requires the AoR reevaluation, along with the iterative process of developing and executing the variou s plans required of GS well operators (e.g., for

AoR and corrective action, testi ng and monitoring, injection we ll plugging, post-injection site care, and emergency and remedial response) inst ead of period permit renewals (e.g., of 10 years for Class I wells). EPA believes the iterative pr ocess and subsequent reevaluations of the AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, an d emergency and remedial response plans are preferable to a periodic permit reapplication and review of the entire permit because they focus

10time and resources to the most critical aspect s of the permit. Additionally, AoRs reevaluated after at least every 5 years of injection will provide data on GS projects to inform EPA's adaptive rulemaking approach.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23524 Letter Lines: 296 to 303

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action

Comment: Dominion supports the requirement to c onduct corrective action within the AoR provided the Director can authorize phased corrective action when warranted based on site specific performance and condi tions. As with ot her discretionary authority proposed, there should be re quirements establishing bounds for exercising such discretion to avoid arbi trary application of such authority.

Directorial discretion should be subject to guidelines as to when phased corrective action should NOT be permitted.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that phased corrective ac tion may provide many benefits to a project including, but not limited to, spreading th e burden of cost, avoidi ng delays in project start-up, allowing for use of future, improved corrective action techni ques and addressing unanticipated changes in the movement of the CO 2 plume or pressure front. EPA believes that the phased corrective action appro ach is appropriate for GS proj ects, and has retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the fi nal GS regulation.

EPA does not agree that a phased ap proach to corrective action shoul d be available to all owners or operators, because phased corrective may not be appropriate at all GS s ites. EPA believes that, given the wide range of conditions at GS sites, the Director is in the best position to make decisions about the appropriatene ss of phased corrective action base d on his or her knowledge of the local geologic and site condi tions. EPA is developing guidances for states that help to

describe the technical and administrative issues a state may need to consider when developing GS regulations that are the e quivalent of minimum federal cr iteria and requirements; this guidance will provided recommended approaches for Directors to exer cise discretion. The guidances will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23525 Letter Lines: 305 to 312

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

Comment: 4. Post-injection Site Care

The proposed rule's post injection site car e (PISC) period of 50 years, subject to Director discretion, is arbitrary an d unnecessary. The PISC should be set

11based on a site-specific performance-based approach.

The PISC period should be based not on an arbitrary default but on a site specific performance-based approach.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a post-injection si te care timeframe of 50 years is arbitrary. In determining the pos t-injection site care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existi ng environmental programs, and in itial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinen t results from GS modeling st udies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explan ation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the fe deral docket, titled "Com putational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for De termination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water. " Based on review of th ese studies, modeling

results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years

after the cessation of in jection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and availabl e data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different de fault timeframe, and has retained this in the final regulation.

To address concerns that, in some situations, it ca n be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the GS regulation offers owners or operators flexibility regard ing the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PI SC timeframe during the postinjection period based on site-specific data , pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Cl ass VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial da ta, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangermen t of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and prot ective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public

comments. 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: 0175 Comment ID: 23526 Letter Lines: 314 to 327

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financia l responsibility requirements (40

12CFR 146.85)

Comment: 5. Financial Assurance

The proposal would require th at permittees demonstrate, at the time of project permitting, financial assurance for activ ities including injection, corrective action, well plugging and clos ure, and activities thr oughout the PISC period - as well as for emergency and remedial res ponse activities to a ddress movement of formation or injection fluids that may endanger USDW. These proposed financial assurance requirements, which exceed those currently in place even for injection of hazardous wastes, raise significant concerns from the perspective of promoting CCS development. The Agency shoul d also consider, as mentioned in the preamble, a phased or staged approach to financial assurance requirements.

Dominion urges the Agency to allow for phasing of financial assurance and consider capping assurances in or der to facilitate CCS development.

Individual Response: In the final rule, owners or operators must demonstrate, with their permit application, adequate financial responsibility for all required Class VI activities, including plugging and post-injection site care, per §146.85(a). However, ow ners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet their financial responsibil ity obligations under the rule, provided the Director determines that the operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to pr otect USDWs from endangerment, which means the ability of the owner or operator to pay for each activity for which financial responsibility must be demonstrated, including correctiv e action on wells in the AoR, in jection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response throughout th e life of the project. The final GS rule specifies at §146.85(a)(1) the permitted type s of financial responsibility instruments. See the final rule and preamble for further discus sion of EPA's final a pproach to financial responsibility.

EPA believes that the demonstrati on at the time of permit applicati on is necessary to ensure that financial resources are available to prevent th e endangerment of USDWs in the event that the owner or operator experiences fi nancial difficulties at any time dur ing the life of th e GS project. In addition, financial responsibility will need to be reevaluated prior to well plugging or site closure, or at any other time deemed appropriate by the Direct or, for example, following AoR reevaluations. See the final rule and preamble fo r further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

EPA disagrees that the requirements equate GS we lls with Class I hazardous waste wells; rather, the financial responsibility requirements for Clas s VI wells are tailored to account for the unique nature of the long term GS of CO2, while provi ding flexibility for site specific implementation. EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize or promote GS; rather it is to ensure that where GS is deployed, it is done in a manner that ensures USDW protection from endangerment.

13Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23527 Letter Lines: 329 to 336

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: While EPA's authority with regard to i ssues of liability transfers for CCS projects is limited, we encourage the Agency to consider that liability transfers may be accomplished under other laws and to examine closely how the UIC rules can take such provisions into account. An option that is within the SDWA's jurisdiction may be to include a provision indicating that where a third party assumes a permittee's regulatory obligations, the permittee is deemed to have satisfied applicable financial assu rance requirements, which can then be terminated for the original permittee.

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owne r or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or opera tor will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

The Agency clarifies that Class VI well permits may be transferred to another owner or operator pursuant to §144.38 whereby generally all other regulatory re sponsibilities are transferred to that new owner and operator, which includes all poten tial liabilities associat ed with meeting the requirements of that permit. Please see further clar ification on the issue of long term liability in the preamble of the final rule.

Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other

remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State

14or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23528 Letter Lines: 338 to 344

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: 6. Transitioning Existing Permitted Wells

The Final Rule should recognize that EOR and EGR wells are the most likely to be utilized for GS by early adopter s of commercial sequestration.

The Agency should facilitate the us e of existing EOR/EGR wells for purposes of GS, provided that they en sure adequate protection of USDW.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for EOR may be among the first GS sites. EPA also agrees that many Class II we lls are designed and cons tructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule allows the c onstruction of these well s to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the re quirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirem ents at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The gu idance describes the methods

available for the Director to evaluate cha nges in risk to USDWs from projects, and recommended approaches the Director may use to evaluate whether a project should be regulated within the Class II or Class VI UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/gr oundwater/uic/wells_sequestrati on.cfm. For more information, please see the discussion on transiti on of Class II wells in the pr eamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23529 Letter Lines: 346 to 359

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: 7. Interaction of CO2 with RCRA and CERCLA

It is essential that the Agency resolve key policy and legal uncertainties regarding the interaction of the Resource Conservation a nd Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the Comprehensive Environmental Res ponse, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA or Superfund") with Class VI inje ction activities. EP A's proposed rule

15refers to the potential presence of unknown or unidentifiable hazardous

constituents in various streams. S ee 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,503-04. This leaves Class VI permittees with little certainty as to which constituents, whether present in the CO2 stream itself, in th e receiving underground soil and aquifer,

or via some reaction between the two, mi ght subject the permittee to liability under RCRA or CERCLA. This regulatory uncer tainty will make it difficult for CCS to attract the investment necessary to ensure its viability as a climate mitigation strategy.

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.

With respect to RCRA, EPA received many commen ts regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 st reams that are geologically seque stered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has deci ded to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability 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 Agency will consider issues pa rticular 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 comment ers who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment pe riod for that rule. Finall y, EPA also notes that

the final GS rule, which adds ne w 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 “f ederally permitted releases” 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.

16Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23530 Letter Lines: 361 to 364

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

Comment: To the extent there is any possibility that CO2 injection ope rations could be subject to RCRA controls, EPA should ex empt such activities under the wellestablished "contingent management" c oncept given that the UIC permit will ensure that the injected ma terial is not mismanaged.

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

identified. As described above, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability 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.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23531 Letter Lines: 366 to 372

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: EPA also should incorporate in its Final Ru le application of CE RCLA's "federally permitted release" exemption to Class VI permits, which would minimize the potential for CERCLA liability attaching to Owners or Operators of Class VI injection wells. This would mean including in the scope of the Class VI permit all CERCLA hazardous constituents likely to be contained in the CO2 stream, including those generated during capture a nd transport, as well as any that could be formed in the injection zone.

Individual Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for their comments regarding the CERCLA exemption for federally-permitted releases. EPA notes that the GS rule is not promulgated under CERCLA, therefore the applicabil ity and interpretation of that statute are outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be determined under the SDWA or the terms of

the GS rule, but rather accordi ng to the CERCLA statute itself and any implementing regulations that may apply.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23532 Letter Lines: 374 to 394

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: Further, EPA already has ample civil a nd criminal enforcement authority under

the SDWA to address violations of UIC permits, including the ability to impose fines of up to $32,500 per day in civil penalt ies. This authority thus provides a significant and independent means of a ddressing environmental contamination.

Finally, EPA should support legislative solu tions to ensure companies employing

17CCS technologies are assured of reasonabl e liability protections. While CO2 is

not listed as a hazardous substance unde r CERCLA, statutory exemptions under both RCRA and CERCLA for a clearly defined se t of CO2 injection streams could be an appropriate device for mitigating liab ility concerns. Or, a more tailored approach to limiting the scope of RCRA a nd CERCLA liability for certain types of CCS projects could be proposed.

In order to effectively promote CCS as a viable climate mitigation strategy, legal uncertainties surr ounding potential CERCLA and RCRA liability associated with GS wells must be addressed. To this end, EPA should employ RCRA's "contingent mana gement" concept and CERCLA's "federally permitted release" exemption as regulatory means to limit potential liability and uncertainty. In addition, EPA s hould advocate or support legislative solutions to limit Class VI permittee liability

under these statutes.

Individual Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their suggestions and clarifies that any comments related to supporting legislative changes to any environmental st atutes are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Changes to the RCRA and CERCLA statutes are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking under the SDWA. EPA agrees that any requirements applicable to CO2 injectate should be clearly identified to the publ ic and to the regulated community. As described above, with respect to RCRA, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA appl icability 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.

Letter ID: 0175 Comment ID: 23533 Letter Lines: 396 to 408

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

Comment: 8. Other Issues Outside the Scope of the Rulemaking

An area of concern to the gas storage industry is the expansion of the UIC program. To date, the injection of hydro carbons for purposes of storage has been excluded from federal regulation under th e UIC program. If EPA sees fit to establish a new category of well for the purpose of injecting CO2 for storage, it should be made clear that this progra m will not affect storage of natural gas. This concern is more pronounced as th e industry expands its use of CO2 as a base gas for underground st orage of natural gas.

The establishment of a new class of well for geologic sequestration of CO2 should not include expanding th e UIC program generally to incorporate underground na tural gas storage.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements apply only to wells that

1819 are injecting CO2 into the subsurface for the purpose of GS, and not to natural gas storage operations. EPA clarifies that de veloping specific requirements fo r natural gas storage operations is out of the scope of the UIC program's aut hority. However, EPA notes that the final rule requires Class VI permit applicants to submit maps and tabulations of we lls, including injection wells (which could be used for ER or natural gas storage), in the AoR for review by the UIC program Director. In addition, the rule requires the Direct or to notify the state oil and gas agency and state mineral exploration and recovery agency as part of th e public notification required for a draft permit (§ 124.10(c)(1)(xi)). EPA expects that these agencies will inform the Director of any existing natural gas storage facili ties around the proposed Class VI GS site and that the Director will take this information and the data on wells in the AoR into consideration when deciding whether to grant a permit for the Class VI well.