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.
Comments on the Proposed Rule for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

We have reviewed Parts I and II of 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146, Federal Requirements Under the

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells;

Proposed Rule.  We realize that the Proposed Rule is promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) designed to protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW); however, we also have   

concerns on GS that are clearly outside the scope of the this Proposed Rule.  We wish to make

comments to the Proposed Rule as well as general comments on our concerns that are outside the

scope of the Proposed Rule.    

Comments on the Rule.  

Our biggest concern is on the issue of “Primacy.”  The “Director,” as defined in the Rule, is the person

responsible for permitting, implementation, and compliance of the UIC program, which, in our case, is

the State of New Mexico.  The Director has discretionary authority on several issues of concern to this

office which includes:  the depth to the target injection zone, whether this zone is below, between, or

above USDWs; exempting aquifers from being afforded protection as a USDW; use of tracers;

monitoring of GS sites, whether soil gas and surface monitoring should be required and if the GS

Monitoring Plan should be a Director‐approved plan (entirely?); and the discretion to shorten the

tentative 50‐year fixed timeframe for the post‐injection site care monitoring plan.

We agree that the above topics are not without merit; however, we propose additional wording within

the Rule that addresses our concerns.  A suggestion is, “The director has jurisdiction for UIC wells under

the clean water act, but that does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over GS activities on federal lands.  

Rather, the GS lessee must obtain both the approval of the Director under the clean water act and the

BLM under the Mineral Leasing Act.  Therefore, the Director does not have the exclusive authority to

grant approval for an operation proposed on the federal mineral estate.  Thus, even if the operator has

secured the Director’s approval for an operation, the operator cannot take any actions on these leases

without the concurrent approval of the BLM.”

In addition, we recommend that a third party verify data submitted by the operator on a proposed Site

Closure and Monitoring Plan.    

Comments Outside the Scope of the Rule.

We have a few concerns that are outside the Scope of the Rule.  These are risks to human health, air,

ecosystems; and illegal dumps.

We recommend that a detailed Risk Assessment be performed that covers all aspects of the CS

operation, from cradle to grave. This assessment should specifically address the risks to: human health;

animals above ground; impacts to ecosystems above and below ground; mobilization of metals; ground

heave; and induced seismicity.  Perception is half of the battle, and we also suggest that the public be

much involved in the development of this assessment.   
Illegal dumping of petroleum products is a concern within this office.  Many of the sites of illegal

dumping have been reported from the public and from field going personnel within the office.  There

always exits some type of evidence on the ground resulting from these dump sites; however, in the case

of carbon dioxide in a gas phase, direct evidence would be difficult to obtain. We suggest emphasis on

the accounting of carbon dioxide from the source of the stream to the injection site.    

Conclusion.

We appreciate the opportunity to make specific comments to the Proposed Rule; and to express our

general concerns regarding GS.  We addressed the topic of “Primacy” and made a recommendation on

possible additional wording to the Proposed Rule.  We suggested that a third party verify data regarding

a proposed Site Closure and Monitoring Plan, and we made general comments outside the scope of the

Proposed Rule regarding human health, air, ecosystems and illegal dumps.  Further, we recommended

emphasis be placed on the accounting of carbon dioxide.     

We are fortunate to be involved in the possible start up of a new industry.  We should carefully tread

these waters at the beginning to ensure a more viable end goal of sequestering carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere.    

Jim Stovall

               
Letter ID: 0389  

Commenter: Jim Stovall  

   

Letter ID: 0389 Comment ID: 28305 Letter Lines: 19 to 51  

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

Comment: We have reviewed Parts I and II of 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146, Federal  

Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon  

Dioxide Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule. We realize that the  

Proposed Rule is promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) designed  

to protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW); however, we also have  

concerns on GS that are clearly outside the scope of the this Proposed Rule. We  

wish to make comments to the Proposed Rule as well as general comments on our  

concerns that are outside the scope of the Proposed Rule.  

Comments on the Rule.  

Our biggest concern is on the issue of "Primacy." The "Director," as defined in  

the Rule, is the person responsible for permitting, implementation, and  

compliance of the UIC program, which, in our case, is the State of New Mexico.  

The Director has discretionary authority on several issues of concern to this  

office which includes: the depth to the target injection zone, whether this zone  

is below, between, or above USDWs; exempting aquifers from being afforded  

protection as a USDW; use of tracers; monitoring of GS sites, whether soil gas  

and surface monitoring should be required and if the GS Monitoring Plan should  

be a Director‐approved plan (entirely?); and the discretion to shorten the  

tentative 50‐year fixed timeframe for the post‐injection site care monitoring  

plan.  

We agree that the above topics are not without merit; however, we propose  

additional wording within the Rule that addresses our concerns. A suggestion is,  

"The director has jurisdiction for UIC wells under the clean water act, but that  

does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over GS activities on federal lands.  

Rather, the GS lessee must obtain both the approval of the Director under the  

clean water act and the BLM under the Mineral Leasing Act. Therefore, the  

Director does not have the exclusive authority to grant approval for an  

operation proposed on the federal mineral estate. Thus, even if the operator has  
secured the Director’s approval for an operation, the operator cannot take any  

actions on these leases without the concurrent approval of the BLM."  

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: 0389 Comment ID: 28306 Letter Lines: 53 to 54  

Comment Code: 5600 5.12. Comments on the Proposed Post‐Injection Site Care Requirements (146.93)  

Comment: In addition, we recommend that a third party verify data submitted by the  

operator on a proposed Site Closure and Monitoring Plan.  

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: 0389 Comment ID: 28307 Letter Lines: 56 to 74  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: Comments Outside the Scope of the Rule.  

We have a few concerns that are outside the Scope of the Rule. These are risks  

to human health, air, ecosystems; and illegal dumps.  

We recommend that a detailed Risk Assessment be performed that covers all  

aspects of the CS operation, from cradle to grave. This assessment should  

specifically address the risks to: human health; animals above ground; impacts  

to ecosystems above and below ground; mobilization of metals; ground heave; and  

induced seismicity. Perception is half of the battle, and we also suggest that  

the public be much involved in the development of this assessment.  

Illegal dumping of petroleum products is a concern within this office. Many of  

the sites of illegal dumping have been reported from the public and from field  

going personnel within the office. There always exits some type of evidence on  

the ground resulting from these dump sites; however, in the case of carbon  

dioxide in a gas phase, direct evidence would be difficult to obtain. We suggest  
emphasis on the accounting of carbon dioxide from the source of the stream to  

the injection site.  

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.  

Letter ID: 0389 Comment ID: 28308 Letter Lines: 76 to 88  

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

Comment: Conclusion.  

We appreciate the opportunity to make specific comments to the Proposed Rule;  

and to express our general concerns regarding GS. We addressed the topic of  

"Primacy" and made a recommendation on possible additional wording to the  

Proposed Rule. We suggested that a third party verify data regarding a proposed  

Site Closure and Monitoring Plan, and we made general comments outside the scope  

of the Proposed Rule regarding human health, air, ecosystems and illegal dumps.  

Further, we recommended emphasis be placed on the accounting of carbon dioxide.  

We are fortunate to be involved in the possible start up of a new industry. We  

should carefully tread these waters at the beginning to ensure a more viable end  

goal of sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  

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.