### 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.Pamela F. Faggen

Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060

Phone: 804-273-3467



### October 15, 2009

Water Docket

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Docket ill 

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



### Re: Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Requirements Under

the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration

Wells; Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (74 Fed. Reg. 44802)

To whom it may concern:

Dominion submits these brief comments in response to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA's) Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment related to the Agency's

proposed regulations for injection and geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (C02) under the

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UlC)

Program issued on August 31, 2009.

Dominion is one of the nation's largest producers and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of

approximately 27,000 megawatts of generation, 1.1 trillion cubic feet equivalent of proven

natural gas and oil reserves, 14,000 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage

pipeline and 6,000 miles of electric transmission lines. Dominion operates the nation's largest

natural gas storage facility with 975 billion cubic feet of storage capacity and serves retail energy

customers 

### in 12 states.

Dominion is a contributing partner to two of the Department of Energy's (DOE) regional carbon

sequestration partnerships, including the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(MRCSP) and the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB). The

company contributed $500,000 toward coal seam sequestration research at the Virginia Center

for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER) at Virginia polytechnic and State University. In

addition, the company is hosting a large-scale coal gasification test facility and research center at

its Brayton Point Power Station 

### in Massachusetts that will produce pipeline-quality natural gas

and a pure stream of C02 that could be captured for storage.

Dominion believes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential component of any

future greenhouse gas (GHG) program. We support the development of clear, flexible and

appropriate regulations that will facilitate investment and development of CCS technology while

### assuring appropriate protections against adverse impacts to USDWs. As noted in our comments

of December 23,2008 on the initial EPA proposal, likely "targets" for geologic storage in

Dominion's regulated territory include unrnineable coal seams and depleted coal bed methane

wells. Although they represent only a small fraction of the total U.S. projected storage capacity,

these targets are the most viable for a significant portion of Dominion's C02 sources. 

### In

addition, use of coal seams for GS also would provide opportunities for enhanced gas recovery,

which could help to make GS projects more economically feasible. For these reasons, we

encourage a flexible approach to regnlating the injection and geologic storage of CO 2 that

provides the opportunity for the development and deployment with proper environmental

safeguards and does not impose unnecessary restrictions or hurdles that could hinder such

development for certain geologic formations. It is with this principle in mind that we offer the

following comments.

Comments on Proposed Prohibition Waiver for Project Siting



### In its initial proposal in July 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 43492), EPA proposed to prohibit any injection

and storage in receiving formations above the lowermost underground source of drinking water

(USDW). 

### In response to comments submitted by several entities, including Dominion, that such

a blanket prohibition would unnecessarily eliminate vast storage formations and could

discourage the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the Agency now seeks

comment on an approach that would retain this prohibition, but provide for a waiver process to

account for limited circumstances in which there are deep USDW.

We commend EPA for its recognition in this NODA that a blanket prohibition related to

injection depth would be problematic and for its attempt to provide needed flexibility into the

process to consider project-specific siting issues through a waiver process. However, we believe

that a removal of the blanket prohibition and an approach to consider siting on a case-by-case

basis (without a specific requirement to obtain a waiver) would provide the same level of desired

protection ofUSDWs that would be achieved through a waiver process.

• Permit applicants will be required to submit detailed information in the permit application

process and demonstrate that there will be no endangerment ofUSDWs regardless of

whether a waiver is needed or not. Imposing the formality of a waiver may add an

unnecessary administrative layer and regulatory hurdles to the process.

• A waiver process would essentially assume, by default, that all projects injecting above

the lowermost USDW pose a heightened risk to drinking water. This is likely to create

unfavorable public perception issues.

• We remain concerned that even EPA's waiver approach could eliminate vast storage

formations that may be the only geographically feasible GS site for some sources of CO 2

and will still be unnecessarily prohibitive of some safe EOR projects. Since EOR wells

are likely the early adopters of GS, this could hamper commercial development of GS.

To the extent the Agency retains a waiver provision, EPA should develop clear gnidelines for

decision makers in evaluating waiver applications as well as the development of a transparent

process to provide guidance for future applicants.

### Comments on a Cumulative Regulatory Framework



### The NODA states that EPA is evaluating the need for a more comprehensive regulatory

framework for geologic storage 

### in order to address issues arising under statutes other than

SDW A, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA). While separate regulatory structures for CCS may be necessary to some degree, we

encourage EPA to avoid piecemeal regulation and to pursue a holistic approach to the greatest

extent possible. Such an approach is critical to ensuring regulatory certainty and efficient

development and commercial deployment of CCS technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. If you have any questions, please contact

Lenny Dupuis at (804)273-3022 or leonard.dupuis@dom.com.

SinCerelY,. 

# l

# p2~g~~C\-

Chief Environmental Officer

Dominion

cc: Mary Rose Bayer

- U.S. EPA

Lenny Dupuis

- DominionLetter ID: 0358

Commenter: Pamela F. Faggert

Organization: Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Letter ID: 0358 Comment ID: 28233 Letter Lines: 60 to 76

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule

Comment: Dominion believes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential

component of any future greenhouse gas (GHG) program. We support the development

of clear, flexible and appropriate regulations that will facilitate investment

and development of CCS technology while assuring appropriate protections against

adverse impacts to USDWs. As noted in our comments of December 23, 2008 on the

initial EPA proposal, likely "targets" for geologic storage in Dominion's

regulated territory include unmineable coal seams and depleted coal bed methane

wells. Although they represent only a small fraction of the total U.S. projected

storage capacity, these targets are the most viable for a significant portion of

Dominion's CO2 sources. In addition, use of coal seams for GS also would provide

opportunities for enhanced gas recovery, which could help to make GS projects

more economically feasible. For these reasons, we encourage a flexible approach

to regulating the injection and geologic storage of CO2 that provides the

opportunity for the development and deployment with proper environmental

safeguards and does not impose unnecessary restrictions or hurdles that could

hinder such development for certain geologic formations. It is with this

principle in mind that we offer the following comments.

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.

Letter ID: 0358 Comment ID: 28235 Letter Lines: 89 to 115

Comment Code: 3200 3.2. Comments on Alternative Injection Depth Waiver Approach

Comment: We commend EPA for its recognition in this NODA that a blanket prohibition

related to injection depth would be problematic and for its attempt to provide

needed flexibility into the process to consider project

‐ specific siting issues

through a waiver process. However, we believe that a removal of the blanketprohibition and an approach to consider siting on a case

‐ by

‐ case basis (without

a specific requirement to obtain a waiver) would provide the same level of

desired protection of USDWs that would be achieved through a waiver process.

‐ Permit applicants will be required to submit detailed information in the

permit application process and demonstrate that there will be no endangerment

of USDWs regardless of whether a waiver is needed or not. Imposing the formality

of a waiver may add an unnecessary administrative layer and regulatory hurdles

to the process.

‐ A waiver process would essentially assume, by default, that all projects

injecting above the lowermost USDW pose a heightened risk to drinking water.

This is likely to create unfavorable public perception issues.

‐ We remain concerned that even EPA's waiver approach could eliminate vast

storage formations that may be the only geographically feasible GS site for some

sources of CO2 and will still be unnecessarily prohibitive of some safe EOR

projects. Since EOR wells are likely the early adopters of GS, this could hamper

commercial development of GS.

To the extent the Agency retains a waiver provision, EPA should develop clear

guidelines for decision makers in evaluating waiver applications as well as the

development of a transparent process to provide guidance for future applicants.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a site

‐ specific and flexible approach is appropriate, and believes

that the requirements at §146.95 that allow injection above and between USDWs through the issuance

of a waiver of the injection depth requirements for Class VI wells based on site

‐ specific information will

ensure USDW protection while allowing injection depth flexibility and use of varied formations and

capacity. EPA adds that the waiver process will also increase public confidence in the process by

providing a clear and transparent public notification process.

EPA agrees with the commenter that a waiver application process that is separate from the permit

application is not necessary, and the final rule combines the application processes. Owners or operators

seeking waivers must provide a supplemental report (the GS Class VI injection depth waiver application

report) with their permit applications outlined at §146.95(a) with additional, site

‐ specific information

including: additional information about the injection zone; identification of confining units above and

below the injection zone; tailored AoR modeling above and below the injection zone; a demonstration

that well design is appropriate and protective of USDWs, in lieu of specific requirements at §146.86; a

description of how monitoring will be tailored for injection above/between USDWs; and information

about public water supplies in the AoR.

The Agency disagrees that a waiver process constitutes a default assumption that all projects aboveUSDWs pose a heightened risk. Instead, the Agency believes that injection above and between USDWs

warrants special considerations to ensure that injection operations do not endanger USDWs.

The Agency disagrees that EPA is reducing capacity for GS, and believes the waiver approach responds

to concerns about local and regional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed

injection depth requirements; allows for a more site

‐ specific assessment of injection depth for GS

projects; accommodates injection into different formation types. However, the primary focus of the GS

rule is USDW protection and a GS project will not be issued a permit if it cannot be demonstrated that

the injection will be protective of USDWs.

EPA is developing guidance on the injection depth waiver process. The guidance describes the

recommended approach an owner or operator may follow when submitting a waiver application,

processing waiver applications by the UIC and PWSS Program Directors, and additional considerations

that may apply to projects that have been issued waivers. This guidance will be available on EPA’s

website at water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0358 Comment ID: 28236 Letter Lines: 117 to 127

Comment Code: 1100 1.1 Comments on the Comprehensive Approach

Comment: Comments on a Cumulative Regulatory Framework

The NODA states that EPA is evaluating the need for a more comprehensive

regulatory framework for geologic storage in order to address issues arising

under statutes other than SDWA, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). While separate regulatory

structures for CCS may be necessary to some degree, we encourage EPA to avoid

piecemeal regulation and to pursue a holistic approach to the greatest extent

possible. Such an approach is critical to ensuring regulatory certainty and

efficient development and commercial deployment of CCS technologies.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS

rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies

(e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of

Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal

environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and theMarine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will

continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies

for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final

GS rule.