North Dakota Underground Injection Co ntrol Program Revision Application to Add Class VI Wells to its §1422 Program

Notice of Public Comment Period and O pportunity 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 po tential 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 Dakot a Industrial Commission would not endanger it. In addition, this program is desi gned to be protective of drinki ng water resources. Class VI wells are prohibited from injecting into underground sources of drinking water.

Comment #2

One commenter recommended denial of North Da kota's application to revise its section 1422 Underground Injection Control pr ogram to include Class VI. The commenter is concerned that the geo-sequestration of CO2 is unsafe and recommends postponi ng an approval until conclusion of a study by the University of Texas.

Response #2 Prior to the promulgation of th e UIC Class VI rules, EPA took many steps to prepare for the rulemaking. One of these steps was to partic ipate in and support research on the geosequestration of CO2 to inform the rulemaki ng. You can read more this at 75 Fed. Reg. 77230, 77238 (December 10, 2010). As a result of these prepar atory 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 direc tly 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 stringe nt 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 require ments 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 demonstratetheir program is as at least as stringent as the corre sponding 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 commente r 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 th rough 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 l ead agency. EPA funding can only go to the lead

agency.