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.firstly, i think this process is extremely dangerous. you really dont know what you

are doing at the present time suff iciently to protect america.

2. all of us in this nation need this conferen ce to be available either on national tv or

on computer software that we can join to see exactly what the state of the art is

currently.

3. are you drilling in chicago - is that why you want this meeting in chicago?

i urge you to put this meeting on computer software so that people all over the usa

are informed. this should not be a secret program, although i bet the politicians dont

want to let the vast population know just how bad this issue is getting. these are my

comments for the public record.

jean public 15 elm st florham park nj07932

> > > [Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]

> [Proposed Rules]

> [Page 44802-44813]

> From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

> [DOCID:fr31au09-45]

>

>

====================================================

===================

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

>

> 40 CFR Part 146

>

> [EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390; FRL-8951-3] From: jean public <usacitizen1@live.com>

To: Sean Porse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, MaryRose Bayer/DC/U SEPA/US@EPA, <americanvoices@mail.house.gov>,

<foe@foe.org>, <information@sierraclub.org>

Cc: <info@oceana.org>, <information@earthsave.org>

Date: 09/05/2009 11:50 AM

Subject: public comment on federal register - why are you making taxpayer pay for the trip to chicago? why cant this be held in

washington on compute software - free trips for employees?Letter ID: 0330

Commenter: Jean Public

Letter ID: 0330 Comment ID: 27930 Letter Lines: 16 to 25

Comment Code: 1000 1. General Comments on the Notice of Data Availability

Comment: firstly, i think this process is extremely dangerous. you really dont know what

you are doing at the present time sufficiently to protect america.

2. all of us in this nation need this conference to be available either on

national tv or on computer software that we can join to see exactly what the

state of the art is currently.

3. are you drilling in chicago

‐ is that why you want this meeting in chicago? i

urge you to put this meeting on computer software so that people all over the

usa are informed. this should not be a secret program, although i bet the

politicians dont want to let the vast population know just how bad this issue is

getting. these are my comments for the public record.

Individual Response: The Agency does not believe that properly managed GS is dangerous. The purpose

of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site

characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post

‐ injection site care, and site closure. The

GS regulation builds upon the long

‐ standing protective framework of the UIC Program. Billions of gallons

of fluids have been injected for decades and EPA has been able to ensure that USDWs are protected in

the vast majority of cases.

EPA chose Chicago as the location for the public hearing due to its central location. A transcript of the

hearing is available in the docket for the GS rule (see www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OW

‐

2008

‐ 0390

‐ 391). EPA also afforded all members of the public the same opportunity to comment online

and by mail through the public docket regardless of whether they attended the hearing in Chicago.