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.
- ~C.~- zG~- o~ ~ G 

*I, " 

STREET ADDRESS: 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Lazarus Government Center TELE : (6i4) 644-3020 F.v~ :16i4> 644-3ia4 

MAILING ADDRESS: 

50 W. Town St., Suite 700 www.epa.state .oh .us P.O . Box 1049 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

October 13, 2009 

Columbus, OH 43216-1049 

Water Docket 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailcode: 4101T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

To Whom It May Concern, 

OCT 2 0 2009 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) respectfully submits the comments below regarding the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments concerning proposed rules for Underground Injection Control Carbon Dioxide (C02) Geologic Sequestration Wells as published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2009 (Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-2008-0390) . 

Ohio EPA is supportive of US EPA's proposal to create a waiver process to allow on a 

case by case basis the injection of COZ above an underground source of drinking water. Ohio EPA agrees with the waiver process as described within the notice of data availability and request of comments. Ohio EPA agrees that the request for a waiver should include : site specific geologic and hydrogeologic information ; be reviewed in consultation with the Drinking Water Program; and be optional for adoption by state 

programs with primacy. , 

Sincerely 

Chris Korleski 

Director, Ohio EPA 

® Printed on Recycled Paper 

Ted Strickland, Governor 

Lee Fisher, Lieutenant Governor 

Chris Korleski, Director 

Ohio EPA is an Equal Opportunity Employer 

OCT 14 200g 
Letter ID: 0390  

Commenter: Chris Korleski  

Organization: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)  

Letter ID: 0390 Comment ID: 28309 Letter Lines: 32 to 38  

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach  

Comment: Ohio EPA is supportive of US EPA's proposal to create a waiver process to allow  

on a case by case basis the injection of CO2 above an underground source of  

drinking water. Ohio EPA agrees with the waiver process as described within the  

notice of data availability and request of comments. Ohio EPA agrees that the  

request for a waiver should include: site specific geologic and hydrogeologic  

information; be reviewed in consultation with the Drinking Water Program; and be  

optional for adoption by state programs with primacy.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection into non‐USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators can seek a waiver of the Class

VI injection depth requirements. The Agency believes the waiver approach: 1) responds to concerns

about local and regional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth

requirements; 2) allows for a more site‐specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3)

accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) allows 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 aquifer exemptions for GS.

Finally, EPA's approach to addressing injection depth variability through a waiver process responds to

concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality

water remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs.

EPA clarifies that the information requirements to support waiver applications as specified in §146.95(a)

include the types of site‐specific geologic and hydrogeologic information the commenter suggests. In

addition, §146.95(b) requires consultation with the PWSS Director. EPA adds that adoption of the waiver

process will remain at the discretion of individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and

Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their

UIC regulations and may choose not to make this process available to Class VI wells under their

jurisdiction.  
Letter ID: 0390 Comment ID: 28310 Letter Lines: 35 to 38  

Comment Code: 3230 3.2.3. Comments that Additional Submissions are Needed (seeking comment)  

Comment: notice of data availability and request of comments. Ohio EPA agrees that the  

request for a waiver should include: site specific geologic and hydrogeologic  

information; be reviewed in consultation with the Drinking Water Program; and be  

optional for adoption by state programs with primacy.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting drinking water resources is vital and is the purpose of

the UIC requirements. The waiver approach establishes extensive site‐specific geologic and

hydrogeologic information related to injecting above or between USDWs that the owner or operator

must submit and the Director must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors, to ensure that water

supplies in the area and all USDWs are protected.