North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program Revision Application 

to Add Class VI Wells to its §1422 Program 

Notice of Public Comment Period and Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing 

August 9, 2013 

Federal Register Number: 2013-19376 

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-2013-0280 

Response to Public Comments 

Comment #1 

One commenter expressed a concern regarding potential danger to the Ogallala aquifer. 

Response #1 

The Ogallala Aquifer is not present in the state of North Dakota, so implementation of the Class 

VI program in North Dakota by the North Dakota Industrial Commission would not endanger it. 

In addition, this program is designed to be protective of drinking water resources. Class VI wells 

are prohibited from injecting into underground sources of drinking water. 

Comment #2 

One commenter recommended denial of North Dakota's application to revise its section 1422 

Underground Injection Control program to include Class VI. The commenter is concerned that 

the geo-sequestration of CO2 is unsafe and recommends postponing an approval until conclusion 

of a study by the University of Texas. 

Response #2 

Prior to the promulgation of the UIC Class VI rules, EPA took many steps to prepare for the 

rulemaking. One of these steps was to participate in and support research on the geosequestration of CO2 to inform the rulemaking. You can read more this at 75 Fed. Reg. 77230, 

77238 (December 10, 2010). As a result of these preparatory steps, EPA has concluded that this 

technology is safe, and enough information to write regulations to implement the program. North 

Dakota’s application, if approved, would allow the State to directly implement its own Class VI 

program. 

Comment #3 

One commenter expressed concern that North Dakota was required to adopt some program 

elements in order to be “at least as stringent as the corresponding [federal] provisions” The 

commenter opined that”[t]he proper measure of stringency for a state program for the permitting 

of Class VI wells is whether the ’the applicant for the permit to inject must satisfy the State that 

the underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources.’ 42 U.S.C. 

§300h(b)(1)(B)(i).” The commenter believed that this is disruptive to the State’s normal 

administrative procedures. 

Response #3 

Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act at 42 U.S.C. § 300h, EPA was directed to promulgate 

regulations to include minimum federal requirements for a UIC program. The regulations at 40 

CFR parts 144-146 and 148 include these minimum federal requirements. As with all 1422 

programs, if states wish to be authorized to implement these programs, they must demonstrate 
their program is as at least as stringent as the corresponding federal provisions. See 40 C.F.R. 

section 145.11. 

Comment #4 

One commenter had concerns about language in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the Commission and EPA. The commenter opined that “[i]n II.C, “Conformance with 

Laws and Regulations”, the words “promulgated minimum requirements” should be deleted 

because these words add no additional meaning, and the ambiguity of the words will introduce 

potential confusion.” 

Response #4 

EPA has worked with North Dakota to revise the language in the MOA to provide greater clarity 

and reduced redundancies. Please see the revised MOA language. 

Comment #5 

One commenter urged EPA to revise the approach to eventual funding of Class VI that is 

reflected in the MOA. The commenter expressed that any grant funds awarded to North Dakota 

for the Class VI program should go directly through the Commission instead of through North 

Dakota Department of Health. 

Response #5 

When North Dakota was originally authorized to administer the 1422 program, the North Dakota 

Department of Health was designated as the lead agency. EPA funding can only go to the lead 

agency.