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.Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0136

Last Name: Smith

First Name: Lewis L.

Title:

Organization:

City:

State:

Zip Code:

Phone Number:

Fax Number:

Country Code:

Email Address: mmbtupr@aol.com

Current Category Code: 260

Comment: The sender is a semiretired energy economist with considerable agricultural

experience as well as experience wi th combustion, energy conservation,

petrochemical manufacture, petroleum refini ng and renewables, such as bioenergy,

photovoltaic, solar thermal, waves and wind.

The rationale for regulating greenhous e gases, including CO2, is simple.

We don't know much for certain about this subject, but we do have a very good

sense of the relative odds, and they are these :

If we do nothing about Global Warming and we are wrong, the consequences will be

horrendous and in many cases irreversible.

In money terms, they will be much greater than the money we would waste, if we

were to do something and it turns out to have been unnecessary.

And by the way, why should we worry about a low probability of wasting money on

the mitigation of Global Warming, when we happily wasted so much more on our

"Iraq adventure" ? Why this sudden concer n for "fiscal responsibility" when so

much blood and treasure has been thrown aw ay for reasons which turned out to be

entirely phony ?

[ We can be certain about that ! ]

Cordially, Lewis L. Smith mmbtupr@aol.comLetter ID: 0136

Commenter: Lewis L. Smith

Letter ID: 0136 Comment ID: 21670 Letter Lines: 20 to 37

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: The rationale for regulating greenhous e gases, including CO2, is simple.

We don't know much for certain about this subject, but we do have a very good

sense of the relative odds, and they are these :

If we do nothing about Global Warming and we are wrong, the consequences will be

horrendous and in many cases irreversible.

In money terms, they will be much greater than the money we would waste, if we

were to do something and it turns out to have been unnecessary.

And by the way, why should we worry about a low probability of wasting money on

the mitigation of Global Warming, when we happily wasted so much more on our

"Iraq adventure" ? Why this sudden concer n for "fiscal responsibility" when so

much blood and treasure has been thrown aw ay for reasons which turned out to be

entirely phony ?

[ We can be certain about that ! ]

Individual Response: The Class VI GS requirements are de signed to ensure consistency in

permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to

reduce CO2 emissions. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see

the final rule and preamble as we ll as the rulemaking docket.

1