0370ss27

0370ss27.docx

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program (Renewal)

OMB: 2040-0042

Document [docx]
Download: docx | pdf











Information Collection Request

for the Underground Injection Control Program




















OMB Control No. 2040-0042

EPA ICR Tracking No. 0370.27



















































Office of Water (4606M)

November, 2021


TABLE OF CONTENTS


1. Identification of the Information Collection 1

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection 1

1(b) Short Characterization 1

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 3

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection 3

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data 6

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 10

3(a) Nonduplication 10

3(b) Public Notice 11

3(c) Consultations 11

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 11

3(e) General Guidelines 12

3(f) Confidentiality 12

3(g) Sensitive Questions 13

4. Respondents and Information Requested 14

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes 14

4(b) Information Requested 15

5. Information Collected: EPA Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 25

5(a) Primacy State and Agency Activities 25

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management 26

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility 27

5(d) Collection Schedule 30

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 33

6(a) Respondent Burden 33

6(b) Respondent Costs 39

6(c) Agency Burden and Costs 40

6(d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 41

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs 42

6(f) Reason for Change in Burden 42

6(g) Burden Statement 44


LIST OF EXHIBITS



2-1 Classification of Underground Injection Control Program Wells

2-2 Flow of Information in the UIC Program

4-1 Respondents’ SIC/NAICS Codes

4-2 Operator Reporting Forms

4-3 Operator Paperwork Requirements

5-1 Primacy State Reporting Frequency

6-1A Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class I Wells, 2022-2024

6-1B Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class II Wells, 2022-2024

6-1C Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class III Wells, 2022-2024

6-1D Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class IV/Endangering Class V Wells, 2022-2024

6-1E Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class V Wells, 2022-2024

6-1F Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class VI Wells, 2022-2024

6-1G Summary of Annual Operator Burden and Costs, 2022-2024

6-2 Annual Reporting Burden by Form (Operators), 2022-2024

6-3 Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost, 2022-2024

6-4 Annual Reporting Burden by Form (Primacy states), 2022-2024

6-5 Annual Agency Burden and Cost, 2022-2024

6-6 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost, 2022-2024

6-7 Annual Burden and Costs Associated with all Well Classes, 2022-2024




LIST OF APPENDICES



APPENDIX A: Detailed Explanation of Respondent Burden Estimates and Respondent Universe


APPENDIX B: Federal Register Notice on UIC Program Reporting Requirements


APPENDIX C: UIC Program Owner or Operator Burden Reduction Efforts


APPENDIX D: UIC Reporting Forms




1. Identification of the Information Collection



1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection


Underground Injection Control Program Information

OMB Control Number: 2040-0042

EPA Tracking Number: 0370.27



1(b) Short Characterization


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will use the information collected upon extension of the approval of this Information Collection Request (ICR) for the monitoring and oversight of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The agency developed the UIC Program to establish a federal-state regulatory system to protect actual or potential underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) by ensuring that they are not endangered by the underground injection of fluids. The purpose of this collection is to help EPA effectively manage the UIC Program and ensure the protection of USDWs.


Monitoring and enforcement are primarily achieved through initial, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reporting requirements. Information is gathered both at the state1 program level and at the EPA regional level. Each EPA Region has the role of implementing UIC programs for states, tribes, and territories that do not have UIC program primacy.2 In addition, each Region must compile and submit information to EPA Headquarters from all respective state UIC primacy programs. This information is submitted in summary reports to EPA Headquarters.


Section 144.6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) describes the six classes of injection wells (see Exhibit 2-1). The UIC regulations specify the information that the owners or operators of various well classes must submit. Class I, II, III, and VI well owners or operators (and some Class V well operators) must submit permit applications and completion reports before injection operations begin. Operators of Class I, II, III, and VI injection wells and a small percentage of Class V wells submit monitoring data and test results. Operators of Class I, II, III, and VI wells submit plugging and abandonment reports when they close their wells. Class IV wells are banned—except for wells used to re-inject treated ground water into the same formation from which it was drawn as part of an authorized clean-up; operators of these wells must submit plugging and abandonment reports as the wells are closed. In general, Class IV and V operators submit only a subset of the information required of Class I, II, III, and VI well operators.


Primacy agencies are also respondents in this information collection.3 EPA collects summary information on permits issued, compliance and enforcement, inspections, mechanical integrity testing, and inventory for all well classes from permitting authorities in primacy states.


EPA estimates that, over the three years covered by this request, the total burden on underground injection well operators and primacy agencies associated with UIC requirements will be 4,894,081 hours (an average of 1,631,360 hours per year), and the present value cost will be $1,089,928,392 (an average of $363,309,464 per year). The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.82 hours, or $628.44 per response annually. The annual burden per respondent is 43.30 hours; the cost per respondent is $9,642.68. During the course of the ICR clearance period, EPA evaluates all reporting information and data collections for burden reduction wherever possible to ensure that all information collections are necessary and that they have practical utility for carrying out the mandate to protect USDWs.


Overall, there is a net increase in annual burden of 339,101 hours between the approved and requested amounts. This increase is due to anticipated increases in the number of Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class VI permit applications expected to be prepared and reviewed. This is offset by a decrease in the number of Class II owners or operators who will be performing monitoring and reporting activities and a decrease in the number of Class IV/endangering Class V wells that will be closed. EPA has revised the state and operator reporting forms, which has resulted in additional burden reductions for primacy agencies and Class V well operators.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection


This Section describes EPA’s need for the information collected pursuant to this ICR and the EPA Regions’ and Headquarters’ use of the collected data. Section 2(a) demonstrates both the need and legal authority for the information collection. Need is demonstrated by describing the potential for contamination of USDWs4 through underground injection activities and the statutory requirements that justify the information collection to prevent that contamination. Legal authority is demonstrated by identifying laws and regulations related to waste disposal, injection wells, and the UIC Program. Section 2(b) describes the practical utility and the users of the information; it focuses on how the information is used to accomplish program objectives and manage programs at each level of implementation.


2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection


Potential for Contamination


The fundamental purpose of the UIC Program is to prevent the contamination of USDWs by keeping injected fluids within the well and the intended injection zone. There are five major pathways by which injected fluids can migrate into USDWs. The following discussion describes each pathway and summarizes information collection requirements to monitor for or prevent migration through the pathway.


Pathway 1: Faulty Well Construction. Contamination through this pathway is caused by leaks in the well casing or fluid forced upward through channels in the cement between the well's outer casing and the well bore. For this reason, the absence of significant leaks and fluid movement in the well bore must be demonstrated when the well is constructed, and periodically thereafter.


Pathway 2: Nearby Wells. Fluids from the pressurized area in the injection zone may be forced upward through wells in the area of injection. Wells that penetrate the injection area in the zone affected by this pressure increase, known as the area of review (AoR), must be properly constructed or plugged. For this reason, plans for plugging deficient wells in the area of an injection well are submitted with the permit application. In addition, plugging and abandonment reports must be submitted if the operator abandons any well.


Pathway 3: Faults or Fractures in Confining Strata. Fluids may be forced upward out of the pressurized area through faults or fractures in the confining beds. Activities to address this contamination pathway are tracked using two information collection requirements. First, geologic information submitted with a UIC permit application is reviewed to ensure that wells are sited such that they inject below a confining bed that is free of known open faults or fractures. Second, injection pressures are monitored so that fractures are not propagated in the injection zone or initiated in the confining layer.


Pathway 4: Direct Injection. Class IV wells, which inject into or above USDWs and have a high potential to endanger human health, are banned. The exception is wells that are used in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)-authorized ground water remediation project. Most Class V wells inject nonhazardous fluids into or above formations that contain USDWs. These include motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDWs), cesspools, agricultural drainage wells, storm water drainage wells, industrial drainage wells, and untreated sewage waste disposal wells. EPA has banned the construction of new large-capacity cesspools and requires operators of existing large-capacity cesspools to close their wells, in a regulatory effort to address the Class V wells that pose the greatest risk of endangerment to USDWs. EPA also banned new MVWDWs and required operators of existing MVWDWs in defined ground water protection areas or other sensitive ground water areas to close these wells or apply for a permit to continue injecting.


Pathway 5: Lateral Displacement. Fluid may be displaced from the injection zone into hydraulically connected USDWs. Information regarding the proximity of injection wells to USDWs is considered by the permitting authority in making a determination of whether proposed injection wells are properly sited. Well operators are required to control injection pressure and conduct monitoring to track any lateral migration of fluids.


Legal Authority


Injection wells are regulated by EPA, as mandated by Sections 1421, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1431, 1445, and 1450 of the SDWA of 1974, as amended. The regulation of hazardous waste injection is jointly authorized by the SDWA and RCRA. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 amended RCRA to prohibit the land disposal of hazardous waste unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no migration from the disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous. Underground injection of hazardous wastes is included in Section 3004(k) of HSWA as a land disposal technique.


Under Section 1445 of the SDWA, persons subject to federal or state UIC programs must “establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under this title . . . .”


The specific requirements for the UIC Program are established in Title 40, Sections 144 through 148 of the CFR as follows:


Section 144 - Underground Injection Control Program. This section describes the general requirements of the Program, authorizes certain types of wells, defines permitting procedures, and establishes procedures for ensuring financial responsibility for Class I hazardous waste injection wells.


Section 145 - State UIC Program Requirements. This section describes the requirements that state programs must meet to receive primacy and the method for obtaining program approval.


Section 146 - UIC Program: Criteria and Standards. This section contains the technical criteria and standards that owners or operators of various classes of injection wells must meet. Monitoring and reporting requirements are outlined for each well class.


Section 147- State UIC Programs. This section describes the provisions of the UIC programs of individual state, territorial, and tribal primacy programs.


Section 148 - Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions. This section identifies hazardous wastes that are restricted from disposal into Class I hazardous waste injection wells. It outlines the standards and procedures by which Class I hazardous waste facility operators may petition to dispose of restricted hazardous wastes.


These CFR Sections contain information collection requirements that are applicable to operators of underground injection wells and to administrators of primacy and direct implementation (DI) programs. Exhibit 2-1 describes the six classes of injection wells. A discussion of the specific requirements for operators is given in Section 4(b)(1); the paperwork requirements for primacy states as respondents are presented in Section 4(b)(2).


Statutory Requirements


Section 1421(b) of the SDWA specifies that regulations for state UIC programs must contain minimum requirements for effective programs to prevent underground injection that endangers USDWs. Therefore, EPA must:


• Publish minimum national requirements for effective state UIC programs;

• List states that need UIC programs;

• Review proposed state programs and approve or disapprove them;

• Promulgate regulations and enforce UIC programs in those states that choose not to participate in or do not develop and operate approved programs; and

• Evaluate state/regional UIC programs for effectiveness in meeting statutory and regulatory requirements.



Exhibit 2-1

Classification of Underground Injection Control Program Wells


Class I Wells that inject industrial and municipal waste, including hazardous waste, beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW.

Class II Wells used to dispose of fluids which are brought to the surface in connection with oil or natural gas production; to inject fluids for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; or to store hydrocarbons.

Class III Wells that inject fluids for the extraction of minerals including: mining of sulfur by the Frasch process; in situ production of uranium or other metals such as ore bodies that are not conventionally mined; and solution mining of salts or potash.

Class IV Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or of radioactive waste, or by owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities, to inject into or above strata that contain a USDW. These wells are banned, unless they are used to re-inject treated contaminated ground water into the formation from which it was drawn in a RCRA/CERCLA authorized cleanup.

Class V Injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III, IV, or VI. Typical examples include, but are not limited to: agricultural drainage wells, storm water drainage wells, industrial drainage wells, untreated sewage waste disposal wells, motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and cesspools.

Class VI Wells that inject carbon dioxide (CO2) for long term storage, or geologic sequestration (GS), and that are not experimental in nature.


2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA information users include regional and Headquarters staff/managers who make decisions regarding UIC regulations, compliance and enforcement actions, funding for state, tribal, and regional UIC programs, and strategic and policy issues related to the mission of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and EPA. State primacy agencies and regional DI programs use the summary information reported by owners or operators on the 7520 forms or an equivalent form to target inspection and enforcement activity, to establish permit terms and conditions, to track performance against demands, and to identify violations and assess their significance. In addition, the primacy agency can use the summary reports it supplies to EPA to evaluate its own program activities, such as the number of mechanical integrity tests (MITs) witnessed, the number of inspections conducted, and the number of permit applications reviewed. The well-level data are used in a similar manner, but allow for a more effective analysis and better understanding by all users.


Exhibit 2-2 charts the flow of information from operators, primacy states, and regions to EPA Headquarters. Operators submit data to states (in primacy states), or to EPA regional offices (in DI states). Each primacy agency, in turn, submits summary data to its respective EPA regional office, which reviews the information and forwards it, along with summary data from its own DI states, to EPA Headquarters. All information in the quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports received at EPA Headquarters is analyzed and stored. These reports are the data EPA Headquarters relies upon to fulfill the UIC Program’s needs and responsibilities. The following sections give a more detailed discussion of the uses of the collected information.


EPA’s Management of the National Program


EPA oversees primacy agencies by using the information reported by the regions and primacy states to track, evaluate, and report on program performance. EPA Headquarters coordinates with its Regions to obtain commitments for performance based on these guidelines. EPA also uses the information to track high priority activities that guide the Regions in carrying out UIC Program objectives and to assess progress toward meeting strategic goals. Performance targets for EPA regional programs are established by EPA and tracked against Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. This information informs responses to information requests and analyses for EPA management, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress, and the public. EPA also uses the reported information for national-level program planning and to set budgets and allocate resources.


In addition to its use for regional oversight purposes, state and regional information is used to justify future program modifications. For example, the information collected may be used to determine if the requirements that pertain to rule-authorized wells or mechanical integrity testing are effective. Primacy state and regional data are used to support or inform these types of decisions.


Regional Oversight of Primacy Programs


The primary use of quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports submitted by state primacy agencies to the Regions is to help the Regions oversee primacy agencies’ performance. The information is used to track individual primacy states’ progress against commitments and to ensure that state primacy programs have the ability to take timely and appropriate action in response to direct threats to the public health due to endangerment of USDWs. Like EPA Headquarters, the Regions use UIC data to develop regional operating budgets and program plans, allocate resources, and respond to inquiries.


Exhibit 2-2 Flow of Information in the UIC Program



Regions also have enforcement responsibilities and use information provided by permitting authorities to track primacy state enforcement response actions for all significant noncompliers, i.e., operators of those injection wells that are most likely to contaminate USDWs. The statutory responsibility to initiate federal enforcement actions may be delegated to a Region if a primacy agency does not fulfill its responsibilities.


The Regions are responsible for reviewing and verifying the information on reports from state primacy agencies before sending them to EPA Headquarters.


Regional DI and State Primacy Program Oversight of Well Operators


States that have been granted UIC program primacy and EPA regional offices that directly implement the UIC Program in states without primacy review information submitted by operators. This information is submitted on the UIC Program’s 7520 reporting forms (or a state equivalent) or, for Class VI wells, via the Geologic Sequestration Data Tool. Permitting authorities use information submitted by operators as follows:


    • Materials submitted with an initial permit application provide the information that states and EPA regional offices need to determine if proposed injection wells will be properly designed, sited, and operated to reduce the risk of USDW endangerment and to establish appropriate permit conditions. The primary responsibility of a state permitting agency or regional DI program is to use information submitted prior to and during well construction to ensure that injected fluids will remain in the identified injection zone and will not leak into areas that could result in contaminated USDWs.

    • Following permit issuance and well completion, the permitting authority uses annual, semi-annual, or quarterly monitoring and testing reports submitted by operators to determine if (l) there is a leak in the casing, tubing, or packer, or (2) there is significant fluid movement into a USDW through vertical channels adjacent to the well bore. Environmental monitoring data required of operators of certain well classes can provide early indication of USDW endangerment. Information on the results of Class VI AoR reevaluations is reviewed to ensure that all observed/measured project data support the existing AoR delineation.

    • Information on the plugging of injection wells is used to ensure that a well will not serve as a conduit for fluid movement into USDWs following cessation of injection.


Primacy and DI programs maintain detailed data about each well that they oversee, and use this information to focus efforts on those injection wells that are in need of enforcement attention. The permitting authority reviews testing and monitoring reports to track the performance of the project and, if necessary identify violations, assess their significance for enforcement, and target inspection and enforcement activities. Operators who have been out of compliance for at least two consecutive quarters are identified on the exceptions list.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria


This Section explains how EPA has no other means available to gather the requested information. It also describes EPA’s solicitation of public comments in the Federal Register and agency consultations in developing the burden and cost estimates; describes how less frequent reporting may lead to the endangerment of USDWs; and discusses the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) general guidelines and provisions for confidentiality.


3(a) Nonduplication


Well-specific data obtained from injection well operators, and the primacy state reports based on that data, comprise virtually all of the information covered by this ICR. To the best of EPA’s knowledge, this information is not required or collected by any other agency or under any other regulation. The Department of Energy does collect information relating to production for enhanced oil and gas recovery wells in its “Annual Report for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Incentive” (OMB Clearance No. 19054135). This information pertains only to oil production, and is related to, but different from, the information EPA uses to evaluate injection well operators. However, on a case-by-case basis, permitting authorities may use this information to supplement existing information on Class II EOR wells.


Since both Class I hazardous and Class IV wells (which are banned) involve the injection of hazardous wastes, there is potential overlap between the UIC regulations under SDWA and hazardous waste regulations promulgated under RCRA. Historically, the regulations established provisions for RCRA interim status (Part A permit) [40 CFR 270.64] for Class I hazardous wells in states in which no UIC program had been approved or promulgated. The regulations allow the UIC permit to be issued in lieu of a Part B RCRA permit if the Class I hazardous waste well meets certain conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.64(c). Thus, although Class I hazardous waste wells are co-regulated under RCRA and the SDWA, there is no duplication of information collection between RCRA and the UIC Program.


Data requirements for Class VI wells under the Class VI Rule have some overlap with those associated with the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases [GHG]: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of CO2 Rule (Subpart RR), 40 CFR Part 98. In developing the two rules, staff of the Office of Air and Radiation and the UIC Program coordinated to consider and minimize the potential overlap in reporting and recordkeeping requirements on operators of wells that may be subject to both rules. Burden and costs associated with air monitoring are accounted for under Subpart RR and therefore are not incorporated into this UIC Programmatic ICR. To avoid duplication, EPA provides flexibility to allow owners or operators of Class VI wells to use the same submittals to meet the requirements to submit a monitoring, reporting, and verification plan under Subpart RR and certain elements of a Class VI Testing and Monitoring Plan. Additionally, some Class VI owners or operators may inject CO2 that is subject to the Conditional Exemption from RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste for Carbon Dioxide Streams Injected into Class VI UIC Wells at 40 CFR 261.4(h). Owners or operators who claim that a CO2 stream is exempt under 40 CFR 261.4(h) must sign a certification statement that the CO2 is being injected and stored pursuant to the requirements of the Class VI Rule. None of the information in the certification statement duplicates information required by the UIC regulations.


3(b) Public Notice


EPA published a notice requesting comment on the burden and cost associated with the UIC Program reporting requirements in the Federal Register on August 25, 2021 (86 FR 47494). EPA received no public comments in response to the notice. A copy of the Federal Register notice of this information collection is attached to this ICR as Appendix B.


3(c) Consultations


Over the course of the ICR development, EPA solicited input from interested parties on revising the UIC Program ICR on assumptions used, which impact the burden calculation, and suggestions for burden reduction, among other topics. For example, working with the Ground Water Protection Council, an organization that includes state UIC permitting authorities, EPA invited states to comment on the ICR. EPA regional staff also provided input on revising the 7520 reporting forms based on the experiences of well operators. EPA evaluates the effects of combining, simplifying, or eliminating some of the 7520 forms or reducing the frequency at which primacy agencies report this information to EPA each time the agency renews the ICR. See Section 3(d) and Appendix C.


3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection


There are two types of respondents for whom efforts could be made to minimize burden: (1) operators of injection wells and (2) state primacy agencies. The paragraphs below describe why it is necessary to collect the information at the required frequency to ensure the protection of USDWs, as well as ways that EPA has identified to reduce the burden on primacy states while ensuring the continued protection of USDWs.


Operators


All Class I, II, III, and VI operators are required to observe pressure, flow, and cumulative volume of injected fluids and demonstrate mechanical integrity. Some operators must sample and analyze their injectate and conduct ambient monitoring. These requirements provide permitting authorities with crucial information to assess whether injection wells pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. In developing the required monitoring and testing frequencies, EPA attempted to strike a balance between ensuring protection of USDWs and placing an excessive burden on operators.


The frequency at which operators must conduct various monitoring and testing activities varies with the potential for the activities associated with a particular well class to endanger USDWs. Periodic monitoring that is specific to the potential risk to USDWs based on the injection activity allows the permitting authority–and owners or operators—to ensure that the project is operating as designed and the well is operating the way it was engineered. Less frequent monitoring and testing might allow injection wells to operate in a manner that could threaten or cause considerable damage to USDWs if evidence of such a situation were to not be discovered for a long time, e.g., by allowing mechanical integrity defects to allow leakage of fluids out of the well. EPA determined that the specified monitoring and reporting frequencies for each well class are at the minimum protective frequency.


Injection well operators also submit information associated with permit renewals. Operating permits are renewed or reviewed at varying intervals (typically every five to 10 years, depending on the well class); Class VI project reviews are associated with AoR reevaluations. This frequency of review is necessary to provide permitting authorities an opportunity to review facility operations to ensure that injection operations will not endanger USDWs.


Primacy Agencies


Several years ago, EPA began a burden reduction initiative to address primacy state concerns over escalating reporting requirements, accompanied by decreases in federal funding. UIC reporting was identified as one of the agency’s 16 priority areas for burden reduction. Primacy states asked EPA to eliminate duplicative reporting, reduce reporting frequency, and reduce the data elements requested. In evaluating the state and operator input, EPA determined that very few, if any data elements, could be removed from the 7520 forms that primacy states submit to EPA while still ensuring maintenance of a robust UIC program that tracks information crucial to the protection of USDWs. (EPA reduced reporting frequency in response to the states’ requests in 2013, however.)


3(e) General Guidelines


Three provisions of the UIC regulations exceed the PRA guideline for response time. Pursuant to 40 CFR 144.51(l), 144.28(b), and 146.94(b), operators are required to report within 24 hours about “any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment.” This is an emergency provision necessary to enable permitting authorities to take timely and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate any potential threat to public health, and this reporting is only necessary for a small subset of injection well operators.


3(f) Confidentiality


Operators of injection wells may claim confidentiality, as provided in 40 CFR 144.5 Confidentiality of Information. If confidentiality is requested, the information is treated in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2, Public Information. Any confidentiality claim must be made at the time of submission in the manner prescribed by the application form or its instructions. In the case of other submissions, respondents may claim confidentiality by stamping the words “confidential business information” on each page containing such information.


Claims of confidentiality for the following information will be denied: the name and address of any permit applicant or permittee; and information regarding the existence, absence, or level of contaminants in drinking water. If no claim of confidentiality is made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice. However, the information is collected for the agency’s internal use and there are no plans to routinely release or publish any of the data.


3(g) Sensitive Questions


There are no sensitive questions pertaining to this ICR.

4. Respondents and Information Requested



This Section identifies respondents affected by this information collection and describes the data items and activities required of operators, primacy states, and DI programs.


4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes


Operators of injection wells are identified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Operator respondents for injection wells are categorized by the industries that produce fluid wastes and the type of fluid injected into each well class. The SIC and NAICS codes for the operator respondents associated with each well class are listed in Exhibit 4-1.


The NAICS code for state agencies that include drinking water programs is 92411 (Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 92312 (Administration of Public Health Programs).

Exhibit 4-1

Respondents’ SIC/NAICS Codes*


UIC Class


SIC Code


NAICS Code (2002)


Description

I

Major Group 13

Major Group 28

Major Group 26

Major Group 29

Major Group 32

Major Group 33

Major Group 36

Major Group 37

Major Group 45

Major Group 49

Major Group 89

Major Group 99

211

325

322

324

327

331

335

336

481

221

54162

54169

Oil and Gas Extraction

Chemical Manufacturing

Paper Manufacturing

Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing

Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

Primary Metal Manufacturing

Electrical Equipment, Appliance, & Component Mfg.

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

Air Transportation

Utilities

Environmental Consulting Services

Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

II

1311

1321

1381

211111

211112

213111

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells

III

Major Group 10

Major Group 14

212

Mining (except Oil and Gas)

IV

4953

562

Waste Management and Remediation Services

V

01, 02, 074, 075


4789, 4953, 9511


7542

7033, 9111


4142, 4212, 4213, 4581, 5015, 5511, 5521, 5531, 5541, 7514, 7515, 7532, 7533, 7537, 7538, 7539, 7549, 9111

  • 111, 112, 54194, 11521

  • 488999, 562213, 562219, 92411

  • 811192

  • 7212, 92111


  • 441, 484, 485, 488, 562, 811, 44711, 44719, 45299, 48841, 92111, 532111, 532112

Agricultural or storm drainage wells


Domestic wastewater disposal wells


Car washes

Recreational vehicle parks and campsites, executive offices (e.g., state parks and campgrounds)

Bus charter services, trucking, airports, flying fields, and airport terminal services; motor vehicle parts; motor vehicle dealers; auto and home supply stores; gasoline service stations; passenger car rental or leasing; automotive repair and services; executive offices

VI

  • 4911

  • 4911

  • 2911

221112

211111

324110

Fossil fuel electric power generation

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction

Petroleum refining

* Note: this list is not totally inclusive, but represents a large portion of the industries that operate injection wells.



4(b) Information Requested


4(b)(1) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping, Required from Operators


Operators submit required information to their permitting authority using the 7520 reporting forms (or state equivalents). Permitting authorities use this information to verify that the proposed well is sited and constructed in a manner that will prevent endangerment of USDWs; following commencement of injection, they use testing and monitoring data submitted by well operators to determine if the well has mechanical integrity or provide early indication of USDW endangerment. See Exhibit 4-2.


Operators may sometimes attach additional information to the forms to provide all of the required information. Required data items vary according to well class and authorization category (i.e., permitted well vs. rule-authorized well). The information required of operators is listed in Exhibit 4-3.


Initial Reporting Requirements


Two methods are available for obtaining approval for underground injection: rule authorization and permitting. Class II enhanced recovery (II-R) and hydrocarbon storage wells (II-H) in existence before the promulgation of specific permitting regulations are authorized by rule for the life of the well and do not require permits. All new Class I, II, III, and VI wells require permits. Most new Class V wells may be rule-authorized, although operators of a small number of Class V wells may be required to obtain permits.


Exhibit 4-2

Operator Reporting Forms

Form

Well classes responding

When submitted

Purpose

7520-6: UIC Permit Application

I, II, III, V

Before well construction

Provides the UIC Program Director information to determine whether proposed injection wells will be properly designed, sited, and operated to reduce the risk of USDW endangerment.

7520-7: Application to Transfer Permit

I, II, III

Occasionally, during the permit term

Provides information to ensure that the Director has current information on who owns/operates the well.

7520-8: Injection Well Monitoring Report

I, III

During injection operations

Provides information to demonstrate that the well is operating according to permit limits and has mechanical integrity.

7520-11: Annual Disposal/Injection Well Monitoring Report

II

During injection operations

Provides information to demonstrate that the well is operating according to permit limits and has mechanical integrity.

7520-16: Inventory of Class V Injection Wells

V

Before well construction

Provides information to ensure that the Director is aware of the presence of a Class V well.

7520-17: Class V Pre-Closure and Post-Closure Notification Form

V

Before/after the well is plugged

Provides information to ensure that a Class V well will be/was plugged in a manner that will not allow it to become a conduit for fluid movement.

7520-18: Completion Form for Injection Wells

I, II, III

Following well construction

Provides information to verify that the well was constructed as described in the UIC permit/ensure that injected fluids will remain in the identified injection zone.

7520-19: Well Rework, Plugging & Abandonment Plan, or Plugging & Abandonment Affidavit

I, II, III

Before well construction; occasionally during the permit term; following plugging

Provides information to ensure that well maintenance activities will be conducted in a manner that does not compromise the well’s mechanical integrity; or that the well will be/was plugged in a manner that will not allow it to become a conduit for fluid movement.



Rule-Authorized Wells


Wells in existence before the promulgation of specific permitting regulations are authorized by rule until regulations require them to be permitted. To meet initial reporting requirements, operators of rule-authorized wells are required to submit inventory information (i.e., facility name; name and address of the facility’s legal contact; ownership status; and operating status of the injection well) to the permitting authority using Form 7520-16 (or a state-developed equivalent form). Operators must also submit a plugging and abandonment plan and information regarding financial responsibility (this requirement does not apply to rule-authorized Class V wells). Authorization terminates if the operator fails to supply any required information or if the well loses mechanical integrity or contaminates a USDW.


Permitted Wells5


Operators of permitted wells must follow a two-step permit application procedure. The operator must submit a permit application (via Form 7520-6 or a state equivalent) prior to construction, and a completion report (Form 7520-18 or a state equivalent) before commencing injection. (Instead of submitting a completion report, owners or operators of Class VI wells must submit final site characterization information before commencing injection.) Operators must include the following information with their permit applications:


• Inventory Information: name of the facility, name and address of legal contact, ownership of facility, NAICS/SIC code(s), and a description of the activities requiring a permit [all well Classes];

  • List of Landowners: a list of landowners within one-quarter mile of the facility (in DI programs) [all well Classes];6

• Area of Review Methods: methods and calculations used to determine the AoR [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Maps of Wells/Area of Review: a tabulation of all wells within the AoR (within one-quarter mile of the well, or within 2 miles of a Class I hazardous well, or as defined by computational modeling for a Class VI well) that penetrate the injection zone or the confining zone [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Corrective Action Plan: a plan for corrective action for deficient wells within the AoR [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Data: maps and cross sections of USDWs, and data (including maps and cross sections) on the local and regional geology of the confining zone [Classes I, III, and VI] or names and depths of USDWs [Class II];

Exhibit 4-3

Operator Paperwork Requirements

Information Submitted

Class


I-H

I-N

II

III

V *

VI

Inventory Information





X


Permit Application

List of Landowners

X

X

X

X

X

X

Area of Review Methods

X

X

X

X


X

Maps of Wells/Area of Review

X

X

X

X


X

Corrective Action Plan

X

X

X

X


X

Maps and Cross Sections of USDWs

X

X


X


X

Names and Depths of USDWs



X




Maps and Cross Sections of Local and Regional Geology

X

X


X


X

Geologic Data on Injection and Confining Zones



X



X

Proposed Operating Data

X

X

X

X


X

Proposed Formation Testing Program

X

X


X


X

Proposed Stimulation Program

X

X


X


X

Proposed Injection Procedures

X

X


X


X

Construction Details

X

X

X



X

Changes in Injected Fluid




X


X

Plans for Well Failures/Emergency and Remedial Response Plan

X

X


X


X

Ambient Monitoring Program

X

X


X


X

Plugging and Abandonment Plan

X

X

X

X


X

Financial Assurance

X

X

X

X


X

Post-Injection Site Care Plan






X

Aquifer Exemption Request (if needed)

X

X

X

X


X

Injection Depth Waiver Application






X

Completion Report

Results of Logs and Tests Performed During Construction

X

X

X

X


X

MIT Results

X

X

X

X


X

Anticipated Maximum Injection Pressure & Flow Rate

X

X

X

X


X

Formation Testing Results

X

X

X

X


X

Actual Injection Procedure

X

X

X

X


X

Hydrogeologic Compatibility/ Compatibility of Well Materials

X

X


X


X

Status of Corrective Action

X

X

X

X


X

Monitoring and Reporting

Chemical Composition of Injectate

X

X

X

X

X

X

Injection Pressure, Volume, & Flow Rate

X

X

X

X


X

MIT Results

X

X

X

X


X

Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Results

X

X


X


X

Pressure Fall-Off Test Results

X

X




X

CO2 Plume and Pressure Front Tracking Data






X

Recordkeeping

Retain Monitoring, Testing, Permitting Records

X

X

X

X

X

X

Closure

Closure Report

X

X

X

X


X

* Operators of rule-authorized Class V wells will submit inventory information only; Class V wells that are issued permits will be subject to the other paperwork requirements listed.


• Proposed Operating Data: a description of the proposed operation, including rates and volumes of fluids to be injected, injection pressures, and sources and constituent analyses of injection fluids [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Proposed Formation Testing Program: a description of the proposed formation testing program [Classes I, III, and VI, optional for Class II];

• Proposed Stimulation Program: a description of the proposed stimulation program [Classes I, III, and VI, optional for Class II];

• Proposed Injection Procedures: a description of the proposed injection procedure [Classes I, III, and VI, optional for Class II];

• Construction Details: construction plans, including schematic drawings of the surface and subsurface details of the injection system [Classes I, II, and VI];

• Changes in Injected Fluid: expected changes in pressure, native fluid displacement, and direction of movement of injected fluid [Classes I, III, and VI];

• Plans for Well Failures: plans for contingency action in the case of shut-ins or well failures [Classes I and III, optional for Class II] or an Emergency and Remedial Response Plan [Class VI];

• Ambient Monitoring Program: planned ambient monitoring, including the location of monitoring wells and monitoring devices and the proposed sampling frequency [Classes I, III, and VI, optional for Class II] and how Class VI operators will monitor the position of the CO2 plume and pressure front;

• Plugging and Abandonment Plan: plans for closing the well, including the type and placement of the plugs to be used on Form 7520-19 or a state equivalent [Classes I, II, and III] or Well Plugging and Post Injection Site Care (PISC) and Site Closure Plans [Class VI]; and

• Financial Assurance: evidence of financial responsibility for closing the well [Classes I, II, III, and VI] and for corrective action, PISC, and emergency and remedial response [Class VI].


Upon approval of the permit application, the operator may begin to construct the well. Following construction, the operator must submit a completion report prior to being authorized to inject. Completion reports must include the following information:


• Results of deviation checks, and other logs and tests [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Demonstration of mechanical integrity (i.e., the results of a casing pressure test; radioactive tracer survey of the bottom-hole cement; and/or temperature, noise, or other logs to check for movement along the borehole) [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Anticipated maximum injection pressure and flow rate [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• The results of formation fluid sampling, and testing of the injection and confining zones [Classes I, II, III, VI];

• Actual injection procedures [Classes I, II, III, and VI];

• Report on hydrogeologic compatibility and the compatibility of well materials [Classes I, III, and VI];

• The status of corrective action on deficient wells within the AoR [Classes I, II, III, and VI]; and

• The final delineated AoR and any updates to the required project plans based on computational modeling of the AoR [Class VI].


Operators of Class I hazardous waste injection wells (i.e., that are seeking an exemption from the prohibition from injecting any of the Class I listed hazardous wastes) must submit the following information in addition to the information described above:


• No Migration Petition. Operators of Class I hazardous waste injection wells must demonstrate, usually by computational modeling, that their wastes will not endanger USDWs. The operator must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the hazardous constituents of wastes will not migrate from the injection zone. In particular, the petition must prove that the waste will not reach beyond the top of the injection zone or escape through a conduit within the injection zone within 10,000 years. This is also known as the Fluid Flow Petition. A chemical fate demonstration may also be submitted to satisfy this requirement.

• Report on Hydrogeologic Compatibility/Compatibility of Well Materials. Operators of Class I hazardous waste injection wells must demonstrate hydrogeologic compatibility (i.e., that the waste stream and its anticipated reaction products will be compatible with both the geologic material of the injection zone and any previously injected fluids), and compatibility of well materials (i.e., that the waste stream will be compatible with the well materials that come in contact with the waste).

• Waste Analysis Plan. Class I hazardous waste well operators must develop and follow an approved waste analysis plan that describes procedures for a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of their waste. The waste analysis plan must specify: (1) the parameters within which the waste will be analyzed and the rationale for selecting these parameters; (2) the test methods that will be used to test for these parameters; and (3) the sampling method that will be used to obtain a representative sample of the waste to be analyzed.

• Other Information. Operators of Class I hazardous waste wells must also submit a description of the hydrogeologic and geochemical conditions at the site and the physicochemical nature of the waste stream.


Class V facilities generally are rule-authorized. Permitting authorities may require some Class V operators to apply for a permit to commence or to continue injecting. Typically, the permit application process for Class V operators is less complex than for other well classes—operators are typically required to submit a description of the activities requiring a permit, inventory information, topographic maps, and a plugging and abandonment plan that includes a demonstration of financial responsibility for closure.


Operators of Class VI wells must submit and gain approval for a series of project-specific plans, including: an Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan, a Testing and Monitoring Plan, an Injection Well Plugging Plan, a PISC and Site Closure Plan, and an Emergency and Remedial Response Plan. In addition, applicants seeking to inject CO2 for geologic storage above or between USDWs must apply for an injection depth waiver; this application is separate from, but submitted at the same time as, the Class VI permit application.


Operators of Class I, Class II, or Class III wells seeking to inject into an aquifer that meets the definition of a USDW and is not exempted must request and receive an aquifer exemption. This request includes a delineation of the area proposed for exemption and a demonstration that the request meets the criteria at 40 CFR 146.4. (Owners or operators of Class VI wells transitioning from Class II EOR wells may apply to expand the areal extent of existing Class II aquifer exemptions; new aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells are prohibited, however.)


Monitoring and Testing Requirements


All Class I, II, III, and VI well operators must observe injection pressure, rate, and cumulative volume and demonstrate mechanical integrity. Requirements for other monitoring and testing activities vary by class. Specific UIC monitoring and testing activities include:


  • Monitor injection pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume of injected fluids [continuously for Class I hazardous and Class VI, weekly for Class II disposal wells (II-D), monthly for Class II-R, and semi-monthly for Class III] and temperature of injected fluids and annulus pressure between the tubing and the long string casing [Class I];


  • Conduct chemical monitoring of injectate as described in a waste analysis plan or as specified by the permitting authority [Classes I, II, III, VI, and permitted Class V MVWDWs];


  • Test for internal and external mechanical integrity of the well casing, via:


  • Casing pressure test [annually for Class I hazardous and Class VI, every five years for Class I nonhazardous, Class II, and Class III salt solution mining];

  • Radioactive tracer survey of the bottom-hole cement [annually for Class I hazardous];

  • Temperature, noise, or other logs to test for movement of fluid along the borehole [annually for Class VI, every five years for Class I and Class III salt solution mining];7

  • Continuous monitoring of injection pressure, volume, and rate to demonstrate internal mechanical integrity [Class VI]; and

  • Casing inspection log to evaluate the internal condition of a well's casing, if required by the Director [Class I hazardous and Class VI].


  • Conduct ambient monitoring, including:

  • Ground water quality monitoring [annually for Class I, semi-monthly for active Class III wells and monthly for Class III facilities in restoration, and per the approved Testing and Monitoring Plan for Class VI];

  • A pressure fall-off test [annually for Class I and VI];

  • Sludge monitoring [annually in permitted Class V MVWDWs]; and

  • CO2 plume and pressure front tracking using direct methods and indirect methods, unless the Director determines this is not feasible given site-specific geologic conditions [Class VI].

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements


All operators of permitted and rule-authorized wells must report to primacy state or DI agencies on the results of required monitoring and testing (using Form 7520-8 or 7520-11, or state equivalents).8 In addition, operators must notify the permitting authority of any planned changes to the facility; changes that may result in noncompliance; progress in meeting the milestones of a compliance schedule; any loss of mechanical integrity or other indication of possible endangerment of a USDW; or any noncompliance with permit conditions within 24 hours. Operators must also notify the permitting authority if they plan to work over the well (using Form 7520-19 or a state equivalent) or of a transfer their permit (via Form 7520-7 or a state equivalent).


Scheduled reporting requirements include the following:


  • Class I hazardous well operators report quarterly on monitoring results; and annually on MITs and to update their plugging and abandonment cost estimates.

  • Class I nonhazardous well operators are required to report quarterly on injectate monitoring, annually on ambient monitoring, and on MITs every five years.

  • Class II operators must report monitoring data annually, and on MITs every five years.

  • Class III operators report quarterly on monitoring and on MITs every five years.

  • Class V MVWDW operators that obtain a permit must report annually on injectate and sludge monitoring.

  • Class VI well operators must submit semi-annual reports.


Owners or operators of Class VI wells must also reevaluate the AoR at least every five years and submit a report to the permitting authority. Following the reevaluation, operators must update the AoR and Corrective Action Plan, Testing and Monitoring Plan, and Emergency and Remedial Response Plan based on the results of the revised AoR or submit information that no updates to the plans are necessary.


For rule-authorized wells in DI states, the Regional Administrator may require operators to submit additional information, as needed, to determine if a well poses a risk of endangerment to USDWs. Such information may include periodic reports of ground water monitoring; periodic reports on analysis of injected fluids; or a description of the geologic strata through and into which injection is taking place.


Operators must maintain monitoring information, calibration and maintenance records, required reports, application data, and monitoring results for three years and keep their most recent plugging and abandonment cost estimate for one year.


Closure Requirements


When closing their wells, operators must submit to the permitting authority a plugging and abandonment report demonstrating that the well was plugged in accordance with the plugging and abandonment plan (this requirement does not apply to rule-authorized Class V wells). Operators who choose to plug their wells in a manner different from the one specified in their plugging and abandonment plan must first submit and obtain approval for a revised plugging and abandonment plan.


Class I hazardous waste well operators must also conduct a pressure fall-off test and demonstrate mechanical integrity before plugging the well and report the results of these tests with their closure reports.


Owners or operators of Class IV and endangering Class V wells will submit a pre-closure notification (via Form 7520-17 or a state equivalent) before plugging their wells.


Additionally, Class VI well operators must revise their PISC and Site Closure Plans or demonstrate that no revision is needed; conduct and report the results of post-injection ground water quality monitoring and the position of the CO2 plume and pressure front throughout the PISC period; complete a non-endangerment demonstration that, based on monitoring and other site-specific data, the project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs prior to receiving authorization to perform site closure activities; and submit a site closure report, including a copy of the notation on the property deed regarding the fact that injection occurred.


4(b)(2) Data Items Including Recordkeeping, Required from Primacy States and DI Programs


Primacy agencies and DI programs submit information on wells within their jurisdiction to EPA Headquarters to target inspection and enforcement activities, track performance against demands, and identify violations and assess their significance. The following types of information are submitted:


  • Permit Review and Issuance (7520-1): Information on permit determinations (i.e., the number of permits issued and not issued, and permit modifications), permit file reviews, the number of rule-authorized wells reviewed, AoR reviews, and corrective action performed. (Submitted annually.)

  • Compliance Evaluation (7520-2A): Summary of enforcement actions, including administrative actions and civil and criminal actions. (Submitted semi-annually.)

  • Compliance Evaluation - Significant Noncompliance (7520-2B): Summary information on operators identified as being in significant noncompliance (SNC) with requirements and enforcement actions against SNCs and returns of wells to compliance; contamination of USDWs; and closures. (Submitted semi-annually.)

  • Mechanical Integrity Test/Remedial Actions (7520-3): Results of inspections and MITs and remedial actions conducted for any test failures. (Submitted annually.)

  • Quarterly Exceptions List (7520-4): Summary information on wells that have remained in SNC for two or more consecutive quarters and have not been returned to compliance or been subject to a formal enforcement action. (Submitted quarterly.)

  • Inventory: Class-specific numbers of injection wells and sites. (Submitted annually.)



5. Information Collected: EPA Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management



Section 5(a) describes primacy state oversight of operators and EPA activities related to program management. Section 5(b) describes how EPA will manage the information collected; Section 5(c) discusses how this information collection addresses the needs of small businesses; and Section 5(d) presents EPA’s justification for the information collection schedule.


5(a) Primacy State and Agency Activities


5(a)(1) State Primacy Agency Activities


Under Section 1422 of the SDWA, states that adopt UIC regulations that are at least as stringent as the federal requirements may be granted primacy for the UIC Program. Under SDWA Section 1425, state programs that regulate oil and gas-related injection activities must demonstrate that their program “represents an effective program to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources” in order to be granted primacy.


In addition to the reporting activities described in Section 4(b)(2), state primacy agencies are responsible for permitting the wells within their states. Primacy agencies receive and review permit applications from operators, solicit and respond to public comments, and issue final decisions on permit applications. State primacy agencies also review completion reports and associated testing results to verify that wells have been constructed in accordance with the permit.


State primacy agencies review injectate and ambient monitoring data and the results of MITs and pressure fall-off tests submitted by operators. They also respond to occasional reporting submitted by operators, conduct periodic permit reviews, and respond to operators’ requests for permit modifications. State primacy agencies also review information submitted by owners or operators related to plugging their injection wells. Many state primacy agencies witness some or all MITs and well plugging performed by operators.


State primacy agencies also report to EPA on the status of their programs, including program summary information and well inventories. EPA has developed a web-based reporting system by which primacy states report all of this information, including information formerly submitted on the paper-based 7520 forms.


5(a)(2) Agency Activities


EPA Regions oversee injection wells in those states, tribes, and territories that do not have approved primacy programs. The Regions that directly implement UIC programs perform the same types of owner or operator oversight activities as state primacy agencies. In addition, regional offices review no-migration petitions submitted by Class I hazardous facility operators and requests for aquifer exemptions submitted by owners or operators in both primacy and DI states. Regional staff also review reports on MITs and pressure fall-off tests performed in DI states, and in some cases, tests on wells in primacy states.


EPA Headquarters activities consist of compiling the regional summary information on permit reviews and issuance, compliance evaluation, enforcement and inspections information, and inventory data. EPA also processes applications submitted by states seeking UIC program primacy.


5(b) Collection Methodology and Management


Current reporting from injection well owners or operators to primacy states/DI programs is primarily accomplished by completing the UIC Program’s 7520 reporting forms. The complete set of PDF-format 7520 reporting forms is available to be downloaded on OGWDW’s website (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/reportingforms.cfm). (Appendix D of this ICR contains copies of all the UIC reporting forms.)


Primacy and DI programs maintain detailed data about each well that they oversee. Collection of data from individual operators and quality assurance is the responsibility of the individual primacy state and DI programs. These data are the source of summary information submitted to the Regions and EPA Headquarters for oversight and program management. Most primacy/DI programs use some type of electronic data management system to maintain this data to meet their specific programmatic needs.


EPA developed a data system to collect and manage operator data on Class VI wells. The Geologic Sequestration Data Tool (GSDT) supports organizing and retaining the large volume of material related to Class VI permit application reviews and subsequent project oversight activities. All data, including permit applications, operating data, and testing and monitoring data, is submitted directly to the GSDT by owners or operators, as required at 40 CFR 146.91(e). EPA is continuously updating the GSDT. EPA recently modified the language in the GSDT reporting modules to better align with states with primacy who may wish to adopt the system and benefit from the efficiencies it offers. Additionally, EPA is currently working to upgrade the security of the system so that it can store and transmit proprietary business information and streamline the submittal of Class VI permit applications.


EPA developed a web-based reporting system by which primacy states electronically report the information on the paper-based forms 7520-1 through 7520-4. Electronic reporting supports the agency’s effort to streamline the UIC Program by reducing the reporting burden on primacy states and improving EPA’s data collection and management. EPA has also developed a web-based version of the 7520-16 form used by Class V well operators. EPA plans to continue efforts to streamline and modernize data collection and management by adding electronic versions of other forms, and improving the interface of existing electronic forms based on feedback from the states.


5(c) Small Entity Flexibility


In this section, EPA discusses how this information collection addresses the needs of the approximately 29,000 injection well operators that EPA estimates are small businesses and EPA’s efforts to reduce the burden on small entities.


Few, if any, operators of Class I, Class III, or Class VI injection wells are small businesses. In contrast, many Class II, Class IV, and Class V operators affected by this collection are small entities. EPA reduces, to the extent practicable and appropriate, the burden of this collection on persons that provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 USC 601(6)], using techniques such as:


  • Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond;

  • Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or

  • Exempting operators from the collection of information, or any part thereof.


EPA continues to evaluate and, where appropriate, streamline or simplify the reporting forms that owners or operators of injection wells submit. For additional information on EPA’s burden reduction initiatives, see Appendix C.


Class I


The size standard the Small Business Administration uses to define “small business” varies by SIC code. Class I wells typically involve the following SIC codes:


  • Major Group 13 (oil and gas extraction);

  • Major Group 28 (chemicals and allied products);

  • Major Group 26 (paper and allied products);

  • Major Group 29 (petroleum and coal products);

  • Major Group 32 (stone, clay and glass products);

  • Major Group 33 (primary metal industries);

  • Major Group 36 (electrical and electronic machinery);

  • Major Group 37 (transportation equipment);

  • Major Group 45 (transportation by air);

  • Major Group 49 (electric, gas, and sanitary services);

  • Major Group 89 (services not elsewhere classified); and

  • Major Group 99 (non-classifiable establishments).


The small business size standards for firms in these SIC code groups vary from 500 to 1,500 employees, except for SIC code 4953, hazardous waste disposal firms that own and operate Class I wells, for which the size standard is $3.5 million or less in revenues. Most of the firms that own or operate Class I injection wells exceed both the 500-employee and the 1,500-employee standard. Examples include Allied Chemical, Bethlehem Steel, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, General Electric, Monsanto, and Shell. The hazardous waste disposal firms that own and operate Class I wells are anticipated to exceed the $3.5 million revenue standard.


Class II


Oil and gas extraction firms fall into three SIC categories:


  • SIC code 1311 (crude petroleum and natural gas);

  • SIC code 1321 (natural gas liquids); and

  • SIC code 1381 (drilling oil and gas wells).


All of these categories have small business size standards of 500 employees. According to Dun and Bradstreet Market Analysis Profile, more than 90 percent of the firms in these SIC codes are small businesses, using the 500-employee standard. Even though many of the operable Class II injection wells are owned and operated by large businesses, industry observers believe that as many as half of the Class II wells are owned and operated by firms that are below the 500-employee size standard.


Section 1421 of the SDWA states that regulation of Class II wells must be kept to a minimum, while ensuring that USDWs will not be endangered. Recognizing this intent, EPA has minimized reporting requirements for Class II wells in the following ways: first, while operators of Class I and Class III wells report injection fluid characteristics quarterly, Class II operators report this information annually. Second, Class I monitoring requirements include the installation and use of continuous recording devices to monitor injection pressure, flow rate, volume, and annulus pressure [40 CFR 146.13]. In contrast, Class II operators are only required to observe injection pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume and to record these measurements at least monthly [40 CFR 146.23].


The UIC regulations [40 CFR 146.14, 146.24, 146.34] define the information the UIC Program Director must consider in authorizing Class I, II, and III wells, respectively. Less information is required about Class II wells than other types of wells. For permitting of Class I and Class III wells, maps and cross sections detailing geologic structure may be required, whereas Class II well operators must provide only a description of geologic conditions. Finally, while the permitting authority may require Class I operators to provide detailed construction procedures, including a cementing program; logging procedures; deviation checks; and a drilling, testing, and coring program, Class II well operators need not submit this information.


EPA has also recognized the needs of Class II well operators in other ways. For example, oil and gas wells are often temporarily abandoned, especially by small businesses that operate at marginal production rates. To accommodate this situation, the regulations specify that cessation of operation does not require plugging (and associated information collection) until two years have elapsed.


Many of the changes to the reporting forms that EPA made as part of its recent burden reduction efforts benefit Class II well owners or operators. Notably, EPA clarified the instructions to the permit applications that Class II owners or operators must complete. These changes will help permit applicants improve the quality of their submittals and potentially reduce the need for revisions/corrections to their permit application. This will streamline the permitting process, save burden, and reduce the total time needed to complete the application process. EPA also significantly reduced the number of elements that Class II owners or operators must report associated with well completions; this resulted in a nearly 20 percent savings to owners or operators of Class II wells associated with completion reporting.


Class III


Operators of this class of wells fall into the following categories:


  • SIC Major Group 10 (metal mining) and

  • SIC Major Group 14 (mining and quarrying of non-metallic minerals).


The size standard for both groups is 500 or fewer employees. EPA understands that the operators of these wells are large, diversified corporations, well above the size standard of 500 employees.


Class IV, Endangering Class V, and Class V


EPA estimates that nearly all owners or operators of these wells are small businesses. EPA has attempted to keep recordkeeping, reporting, and other administrative requirements for these operators to a minimum in order to provide regulatory relief to small entities while protecting drinking water supplies. Operators of Class IV and endangering Class V facilities that close their wells must only submit a brief report with basic information about the closure activities performed. Most Class V facilities do not have collection requirements other than to provide inventory information (using Form 7520-16), and EPA’s recent efforts to streamline the reporting forms has reduced the inventory burden to these operators. In 2021, EPA created an electronic version of the inventory form that will reduce the burden on operators of Class V wells because they can report their wells electronically rather than via hard copy form submission. EPA also made several changes to the inventory (7520-16) and pre-closure notification forms (7520-17) that EPA implemented in 2018, which reduced the annual burden to Class V owners or operators.


Class VI


EPA expects that Class VI wells will be owned and operated by fossil fuel power generators, oil and gas extraction companies, oil and gas refineries, and industrial facilities (e.g., ethanol facilities, iron and steel manufacturers, and cement processers). Because the resources necessary to construct injection wells that meet the standards of the Class VI Rule are significant, EPA believes that none of the owners or operators of Class VI wells will be small entities. Therefore, EPA assumes that the reporting requirements for Class VI well owners or operators will cause no significant impact on small entities.


5(d) Collection Schedule


EPA developed the schedule for information collection and reporting to minimize the amount of information collected while ensuring that sufficient information is available for appropriate and timely oversight, evaluation, and enforcement to ensure the protection of USDWs. The rationale for operator and primacy state reporting frequencies is described below. Section 4 presents a complete description of the collection requirements and associated frequencies.


5(d)(1) Operator Reporting


In determining the reporting schedule for each class of wells, EPA considered the potential for the activities performed by each well class to endanger USDWs. Operators of Class I, III, and some Class V wells must report monitoring results quarterly; Class II operators report annually; and Class VI operators report semi-annually. The regular reporting of these data is essential to protecting USDWs. Specific operator reporting schedules for each well class are presented in Tables A-1 through A-6 of Appendix A.


5(d)(2) Primacy State Reporting


Per 40 CFR 144.8, permitting authorities must submit information about the number of permits issued, enforcement actions, operators identified as being in SNC, inspections and MITs performed, and wells that have remained in SNC for two or more consecutive quarters. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the frequencies at which state primacy agencies must report this UIC summary data to EPA. The paragraphs following the Exhibit present the justification for the reporting frequencies.



Exhibit 5-1

Primacy State Reporting Frequencies


Reporting Activity

Frequency

Permit Review and Issuance (7520-1)

Annual

Compliance Evaluation (7520-2A)

Semi-annual

Compliance Evaluation for Significant Noncompliance (7520-2B)

Semi-annual

Mechanical Integrity Test/Remedial Actions (7520-3)

Annual

Quarterly Exceptions List (7520-4)

Quarterly

Inventory Reporting

Annual


Permit Review and Issuance. Permits are the core of the UIC Program, and annual permit information is used for program management purposes. The Program uses permit information to evaluate events that delay or accelerate the permitting process. Delays in the permitting process may result in the primacy states’ inability to meet program objectives and prevent states from meeting schedules. A permitting process that is too lengthy could have a detrimental impact on industry. Conversely, favorable developments may occur that enable primacy states to meet time schedules and goals sooner than anticipated. Both occurrences have a potential for shifts in workload and resource distribution.


Compliance Evaluation; Significant Noncompliance. The justification for semi-annual reporting of compliance information is based on EPA efforts to be routinely and frequently informed of violations of regulations in effect under Section 1421 of the SDWA. EPA must remain informed in order to: (a) oversee and encourage primacy states’ actions on resolving violations or enforcing against violators, and (b) take direct federal action where appropriate primacy state actions have not occurred in a timely manner or have not been successful.


EPA would be unable to effectively carry out the Congressional direction for federal enforcement on violators if it only had access to data annually. Prior to 1987, state primacy agencies provided EPA with the above information on an annual basis. Primacy states then agreed to voluntarily supply the data on a quarterly basis when it became clear that EPA Headquarters could not direct an effective federal enforcement program using data received only once a year. EPA later determined that semi-annual reporting of this information is sufficiently frequent to track compliance information.


Inspections/Mechanical Integrity Testing. Inspections are the principal method of identifying instances of noncompliance. Annual inspection information is used to ensure that inspections are being performed on a continual basis throughout the year. The MIT is the principal method used to determine whether a well is operating in a protective manner, and annual MIT information is used to evaluate these activities.


Quarterly Exceptions List. EPA needs quarterly information on significant noncompliance (i.e., operators that have been out of compliance for two or more consecutive quarters) to determine whether timely and appropriate actions have been taken by primacy authorities and to track enforcement activities, since wells that are out of compliance pose the greatest risk of endangerment to USDWs.


Inventory Reporting. Annual reporting on inventory data, as required by 40 CFR 144.8, is necessary for effective oversight of the UIC Program. Primacy agencies, Regions, and EPA Headquarters need to be routinely and frequently informed of changes in the number and operating characteristics of injection wells to monitor and regulate underground injection effectively and to continue protecting USDWs from contamination.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection


This section presents EPA’s estimates of the burden and costs to respondents (i.e., injection well operators and state primacy agencies) associated with UIC paperwork requirements, and federal burden hours and costs for reviewing respondent submissions. Section 6(a) provides estimates of burden hours for all respondent types. Section 6(b) contains estimates of respondent costs for the information collection. Section 6(c) summarizes the burden and costs to the federal government as users of respondent data. Section 6(d) describes the respondent universe and the total burden and cost of this collection to respondents. Section 6(e) covers aggregate burden hours and costs for all respondents, and Section 6(f) explains the reasons for the change in estimated respondent burden hours and costs from the approved ICR burden. Section 6(g) presents the burden statement for this information collection.


6(a) Respondent Burden


6(a)(i) Burden to Owners and Operators of Injection Wells


Operators of injection wells incur reporting burden associated with the following types of activities: permitting and startup of operations, ground water and injectate monitoring and well testing during well operation, reporting of monitoring results and other events, recordkeeping, and well closure. Non-labor costs include capital and operation and maintenance costs (e.g., to purchase well components or analyze samples to comply with the UIC requirements) and the costs of retaining contractors to perform certain activities. These are primarily operators’ costs; primacy states and EPA regulators would typically not incur such costs.


EPA estimates that the annual burden on the 37,618 owners or operators of injection wells will be 1,400,950 hours over the three years covered by this ICR. This is presented in Exhibits 6-1A through F, and summarized in Exhibit 6-1G. See Appendix A for details on the assumptions used to estimate the owner/operator burden and cost.


Class I Well Operators


The total annual burden on the 466 operators of Class I wells nation-wide is estimated to be 151,032 hours. See Exhibit 6-1A. Of this total, EPA estimates the annual burden for the 73 operators of Class I hazardous wells to be 38,187 hours, and the burden for the 393 operators of Class I non-hazardous wells to be 112,846 hours annually.9


The requirements for Class I operators are among the most stringent in the UIC Program. Operator activities associated with Class I facilities include permitting and start-up related reporting, permit renewals and modifications, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping, and closure-related paperwork. Operators of Class I hazardous wells must also perform an extensive no-migration demonstration and associated activities to demonstrate that their wastes will not endanger USDWs. Appendix A summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the owner/operator burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. Table A-1 of Appendix A presents cost and burden estimates specific to Class I wells.


Exhibit 6-1A

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class I Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

151,032

$8,414,831

$84,170,257

$92,585,088

8,701.1

17.36

$10,640.63

Primacy States

11,068

$508,222

$0

$508,222

2,798.4

3.95

$181.61

DI Programs

19,885

$913,101

$0

$913,101

815.8

24.37

$1,119.27

TOTAL

181,985

$9,836,154

$84,170,257

$94,006,411

12,315.3

14.78

$7,633.30

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.

Class II Well Operators


As shown in Exhibit 6-1B, EPA estimates the total annual burden on the 15,927 operators of Class II wells (associated with the oil and natural gas industry) to be 1,073,400 hours. Class II well operators perform many of the same types of activities as Class I well owners or operators, including submitting permit applications and completion reports, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, and closure-related paperwork, although with significantly less information and paperwork required per operator for each of these activities.


See Appendix A (particularly Table A-2) for details on the assumptions used to calculate the owner/operator burden and cost associated with meeting the requirements for Class II wells.


Exhibit 6-1B

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class II Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

1,073,400

$56,894,584

$109,321,614

$166,216,198

418,055.8

2.57

$397.59

Primacy States

132,980

$6,106,460

$0

$6,106,460

92,357.6

1.44

$66.12

DI Programs

5,938

$272,682

$0

$272,682

5,111.9

1.16

$53.34

TOTAL

1,212,319

$63,273,726

$109,321,614

$172,595,339

515,525.3

2.35

$334.80

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


Class III Well Operators


The estimated total annual burden on the 300 operators of Class III facilities is 101,513 hours. See Exhibit 6-1C. Operators of these wells associated with mining operations incur burden associated with permit applications and completion reports, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping, and closure-related paperwork.


Appendix A (particularly Table A-3) presents details on the assumptions used to calculate the owner/operator burden and cost associated with the requirements for Class III wells.


Exhibit 6-1C

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class III Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

101,513

$4,995,581

$5,279,655

$10,275,236

10,562.0

9.61

$972.85

Primacy States

4,483

$205,865

$0

$205,865

1,571.5

2.85

$131.00

DI Programs

215

$9,886

$0

$9,886

161.3

1.33

$61.28

TOTAL

106,212

$5,211,332

$5,279,655

$10,490,987

12,294.8

8.64

$853.29


Class IV/Endangering Class V Well Operators


Class IV wells and Class V wells that are found to be endangering USDWs are banned from injection, and owners of these wells are required to close them and submit plugging and abandonment reports to the permitting authority. The exception to the ban is for those Class IV wells used to inject contaminated ground water that has been treated and re-injected into the same formation from which it was drawn. These wells are authorized by rule for the life of the well if the injection is approved by EPA or a primacy state pursuant to the provisions for the cleanup of releases under CERCLA or RCRA.


EPA estimates that the burden on the 71 operators of the wells that are subject to this information collection will be 698 hours annually. See Exhibit 6-1D and Appendix A.



Exhibit 6-1D

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class IV/Endangering Class V Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

698

$20,042

$0

$20,042

141.5

4.93

$141.64

Primacy States

56

$2,549

$0

$2,549

55.5

1.00

$45.92

DI Programs

15

$700

$0

$700

15.3

1.00

$45.92

TOTAL

769

$23,291

$0

$23,291

212.3

3.62

$109.74

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


Class V Well Operators


The total annual burden on the 20,837 operators of Class V wells with reporting requirements under this information collection is estimated to be 24,657 hours. See Exhibit 6-1E and Appendix A.


All operators of Class V wells must submit inventory information before they may begin operating their wells, and a small number of Class V well owners or operators will submit permit applications each year. In addition, owners or operators of MVWDWs who obtained permits under the 1999 Class V Rule will continue to monitor ground water and sludge and submit the results to the permitting authority.


Exhibit 6-1E

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class V Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

24,657

$682,927

$8,722,675

$9,405,602

28,232.5

0.87

$333.15

Primacy States

7,938

$364,494

$0

$364,494

14,617.7

0.54

$24.94

DI Programs

3,242

$148,889

$0

$148,889

6,229.7

0.52

$23.90

TOTAL

35,837

$1,196,310

$8,722,675

$9,918,985

49,079.9

0.73

$202.10

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


Class VI Well Operators


EPA estimates that the burden on about 17 Class VI well operators (who inject carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration) that are subject to this information collection during the clearance period will be 49,649 hours annually.


Owners or operators of Class VI wells who inject CO2 for geologic sequestration must submit permit applications and perform start-up-related reporting, demonstrate financial responsibility, perform monitoring and testing, conduct AoR reevaluations and associated plan revisions during injection operations, and conduct closure and post-injection site care related activities. See Exhibit 6-1F and Appendix A.



Exhibit 6-1F

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Class VI Wells

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

49,649

$5,651,568

$68,575,264

$74,226,832

230.3

215.61

$322,351.62

Primacy States

6,951

$319,198

$0

$319,198

22.3

311.25

$14,292.43

DI Programs

9,060

$416,028

$0

$416,028

43.1

210.37

$9,660.08

TOTAL

65,660

$6,386,794

$68,575,264

$74,962,058

295.7

222.07

$253,535.71

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


Exhibit 6-1G summarizes the operator burden and costs, by well type (from Exhibits 6-1A through F). Exhibit 6-3, in the next section, provides a similar summary for primacy agencies.


Exhibit 6-1G

Summary of Annual Operator Burden and Cost (based on above exhibits)

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Class I Operators

151,032

$8,414,831

$84,170,257

$92,585,088

8,701.1

17.36

$10,640.63

Class II Operators

1,073,400

$56,894,584

$109,321,614

$166,216,198

418,055.8

2.57

$397.59

Class III Operators

101,513

$4,995,581

$5,279,655

$10,275,236

10,562.0

9.61

$972.85

Class IV Operators

698

$20,042

$0

$20,042

141.5

4.93

$141.64

Class V Operators

24,657

$682,927

$8,722,675

$9,405,602

28,232.5

0.87

$333.15

Class VI Operators

49,649

$5,651,568

$68,575,264

$74,226,832

230.3

215.61

$322,351.62

TOTAL

1,400,950

$76,659,534

$276,069,465

$352,728,999

465,923

3.01

$757.05

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


As noted in Section 4(b), owners or operators use the 7520 reporting forms (or state equivalents) to submit much of the information required by the UIC regulations. The burden to owners or operators associated with each form is presented in Exhibit 6-2. Note that, due to the separate but related processes for calculating the burden for complying with each element of the UIC regulations (as described in this ICR) and developing the burdens reported on the forms, the total burden in Exhibits 6-1G and 6-2 differ. See Appendix A for details about the specific activities included in the burden and cost estimates.




6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies


EPA estimates that the annual oversight burden on the 59 state primacy agencies that oversee the various classes of injection wells is 163,475 hours. This burden is for evaluating permit applications and completion reports, reviewing monitoring and testing data, and responding to closure reports and other notifications submitted by operators in their states.

The burden to primacy states as respondents associated with compiling and reporting data to EPA totals 66,936 hours annually.


Exhibit 6-3 shows the annual primacy agency burden hours associated with oversight of each class of injection well and for providing information to EPA. Appendix A describes the basis for the burden estimates. Exhibit 6-4 presents the burden to primacy states associated with each 7520 state reporting form.


Exhibit 6-3

Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Class I Programs

11,068

$508,222

$0

$508,222

2,798.4

3.95

$181.61

Class II Programs

132,980

$6,106,460

$0

$6,106,460

92,357.6

1.44

$66.12

Class III Programs

4,483

$205,865

$0

$205,865

1,571.5

2.85

$131.00

Class IV Programs

56

$2,549

$0

$2,549

55.5

1.00

$45.92

Class V Programs

7,938

$364,494

$0

$364,494

14,617.7

0.54

$24.94

Class VI Programs

6,951

$319,198

$0

$319,198

22.3

311.25

$14,292.43

Subtotal-Operator Oversight

163,475

$7,506,787

$0

$7,506,787

111,423.1

1.47

$67.37

States as Respondents

66,936

$3,073,678

$0

$3,073,678

767.0

87.27

$4,007.40

TOTAL

230,411

$10,580,465

$0

$10,580,465

112,190.1

2.05

$94.31

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


Exhibit 6-4: Annual Reporting Burden by Form (Primacy States)

2022-2024

Form

Unit burden/ response

Number of responses

Total burden


7520-1: Report on Permit Review and Issuance (Annual)

4.5

59

266


7520-2A: Report on Compliance Evaluation (Semi-annual)

6.0

118

708


7520-2B: Report on Compliance Evaluation for Significant Noncompliance (Semi-annual)

5.5

118

649


7520-3: Report on Mechanical Integrity Tests/Remedial Action (Annual)

5.0

59

295


7520-4: Report on Quarterly Exceptions (Quarterly)

2.0

236

472




6(b) Respondent Costs


6(b)(i) Cost to Operators


Exhibits 6-1A through F and 6-1G show the total costs for owners and operators of various classes of injection wells over the three-year ICR clearance period. Annual costs to injection well operators are estimated at approximately $352.7 million, which consists of $276.1 million in non-labor costs and $76.7 million in labor costs.


EPA determined operator labor cost by estimating the mix of legal, managerial, technical, and clerical time needed to perform each collection activity. For Classes I, II, and III, the labor cost estimate is based on average hourly estimates for salary and overhead of $96 for legal staff, $97 for managerial staff, $56 for technical staff, and $33 for clerical staff. For Classes IV and V, hourly salary and overhead rates are estimated to be slightly less: $29 for legal staff, $61 for managerial staff, $30 for technical staff, and $25 for clerical staff. For Class VI, the labor cost estimate is based on average hourly estimates for salary and overhead of $106 for mining and geological engineers and $118 for geoscientists.


EPA estimated non-labor costs based on input from staff in EPA Regions and state primacy agencies, and from operators and other sources. This ICR assumes there are no capital costs to operators–large capital expenditures (e.g., construction costs and monitoring equipment) are considered to be customary business practice. All non-labor costs to operators associated with this collection are operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, such as the cost of contractor services or laboratory fees associated with injectate, sludge, or ground water monitoring. Contractor time was estimated to be approximately $102 per hour.


6(b)(ii) Cost to State Primacy Agencies


Exhibit 6-3 shows that the annual cost to primacy agencies (as overseers of injection well owners or operators and as reporters to EPA) is estimated at approximately $10.6 million, all of which is labor cost. For this ICR, EPA assumed that the average hourly labor rate for a state employee is $45.92. This estimate is based on a federal GS-9, Step 10 salary on the 2021 federal pay scale, increased by 60 percent to account for overhead costs. (This is the inflation factor recommended in EPA’s ICR Handbook.)


6(c) Agency Burden and Costs


EPA’s regional offices implement the UIC Program for Classes I through V in eleven states and have oversight responsibility for a subset of well classes in eight states and two tribes. Additionally, EPA assumes that, at the beginning of the clearance period, the agency will directly implement the Class VI program in all states, except two, with an additional three states obtaining Class VI program primacy during the clearance period. The paperwork requirements for DI programs are roughly the same as those for the state primacy programs. In addition, EPA regions review all no-migration petitions submitted by Class I hazardous facility operators, all aquifer exemption requests, and Class VI injection depth waiver requests in both primacy and DI states in their Region.


EPA Headquarters’ activities associated with oversight of the national UIC Program include gathering, reviewing, and analyzing state primacy program summary data, and well inventory data.


The total annual burden for federal DI programs associated with the above activities is 42,516 hours. See Exhibit 6-5.


EPA assumes the average hourly labor rate for salary and overhead and benefits for agency staff to be $45.92. This estimate is based on a federal GS-9, Step 10 salary on the 2021 federal pay scale, increased by 60 percent to account for overhead costs. The annual federal cost associated with this collection is $1,952,314 (all of which is labor cost). The breakdown of agency cost associated with each well class is presented in Exhibit 6-5.


Exhibit 6-5

Annual Agency Burden and Cost

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Class I DI Programs

19,885

$913,101

$0

$913,101

815.8

24.37

$1,119.27

Class II DI Programs

5,938

$272,682

$0

$272,682

5,111.9

1.16

$53.34

Class III DI Programs

215

$9,886

$0

$9,886

161.3

1.33

$61.28

Class IV DI Programs

15

$700

$0

$700

15.3

1.00

$45.92

Class V DI Programs

3,242

$148,889

$0

$148,889

6,229.7

0.52

$23.90

Class VI DI Programs

9,060

$416,028

$0

$416,028

43.1

210.37

$9,660.08

Headquarters Management

4,160

$ 191,027

$0

$191,027

1.0

4,160

$191,027

TOTAL

42,516

$1,952,314

$0

$1,952,314

12,378.1

3.43

$157.72

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


6(d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs


EPA estimates that 37,618 owners or operators of injection wells/facilities and 59 primacy agencies are subject to the UIC Program’s information collection requirements outlined in Section 6(a). The number of responses for each well class and activity are shown in Exhibits 6-1A though 6-1F, and summarized in Exhibit 6-1G. The estimates of the number of primacy state responses are shown in Exhibit 6-3. This number, known as the respondent universe, is based on EPA’s assumptions of the number of permittees subject to each paperwork requirement (that is, the number of permit applicants or the percent of permittees subject to monitoring or reporting requirements and the frequency with which they must comply with those requirements). Part 2 of Appendix A provides more detail on EPA’s assumptions about the number of respondents that perform each collection activity.


EPA estimates that the total non-federal respondent burden over the three years covered by this ICR is 4.89 million hours (or 1.63 million hours per year). The total cost to respondents is $1,089.9 million (or $363.3 million per year).


6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs


The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 6-6.


Exhibit 6-6

Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost

2022-2024

Number of Respondents

37,677

=

37,618

Operators (from EPA inventory) +

 

 

 

59

Primacy agencies

Total Annual Responses

578,113

=

465,923

Operator responses (from Exhibit 6-1G) +

 

 

 

112,190

Primacy agency responses (from Exhibit 6-3)

Number of Responses per Respondent

15.3

=

578,113

Total annual responses from above ÷

 

 

37,677

Total respondents from above

Total Respondent Hours

1,631,360

=

1,400,950

Operator burden hours (from Exhibit 6-1G) +

 

 

 

230,411

Primacy agency burden hours (from Exhibit 6-3)

Hours per Response

2.82

=

1,631,360

Total annual hours from above ÷

 

 

 

578,113

Total responses from above

Annual O&M + Capital Cost

$276,069,465

=

$276,069,465

Operator non-labor cost (from Exhibit 6-1G) +

 

 

$0

Primacy agency non-labor cost (from Exhibit 6-3)

Total Respondent Cost

$363,309,464

=

$352,728,999

Operator cost (from Exhibit 6-1G) +

 

 

 

$10,580,465

Primacy agency cost (from Exhibit 6-3)

Total Hours (Respondents)

1,673,876

=

1,631,360

Total respondent hours from above +

 

 

 

42,516

Total EPA hours (from Exhibit 6-5)

Total Cost (Respondents plus Agency)

 

$365,261,778

=

$363,309,464

Total respondent cost from above +

 

 

$1,952,314

Total EPA cost (from Exhibit 6-5)


Note: Detail may not total exactly due to independent rounding.


6(f) Reason for Change in Burden


The current total annual approved burden on operators and primacy states associated with the UIC Program is 1,292,260 hours. This ICR renewal request estimates a total annual respondent burden of 1,631,360 hours. Thus, there is a net increase in burden of 339,101 hours between the approved and requested amounts. Of this, 259,656 hours is increased operator burden and 79,445 is increased primacy agency burden.


This section discusses the change in burden to operators of injection wells and primacy agencies between the burden requested in this ICR and the approved burden. The burden changes are the result of program and inventory changes that affect well operators and the agencies that oversee them.


Program Changes


The following program changes affect the UIC reporting burden in this ICR:


  • Revisions to owner or operator reporting forms. EPA created an electronic version of the 7520-16 (Class V Inventory) form to allow operators of Class V wells to report electronically rather than via hard copy form submission. EPA also made minor, clarifying revisions to other reporting forms submitted by injection well owners or operators. These changes will: reduce the burden necessary to complete the forms; improve the likelihood that the forms will be submitted correctly to reduce the time to process UIC requests; and simplify the reporting process. EPA estimates that these changes will reduce the burden to owners or operators by 240 hours annually.

  • State primacy changes. Since approval of the last ICR, Wyoming has been granted Class VI primacy, and EPA expects that three additional states will apply for and receive Class VI primacy over the next 3 years. EPA estimates that this change will add approximately 4,160 hours to the total burden to primacy agencies for overseeing injection well operators. (This burden was formerly incurred by EPA.)

  • Changes in reporting of primacy state program information. EPA replaced reporting via the National UIC Data Base with a streamlined web-based reporting approach. EPA estimates that the new web-based system will reduce the burden to all primacy states as reporters by about 826 hours annually.


Adjustments


Adjustments that affect the UIC reporting burden in this ICR reflect the number of respondents anticipated to perform various activities. None of the unit burdens for any of the activities changed, however. These adjustments include the following:


  • Increased permitting activities. Permitting is the most burdensome activity that is performed by injection well operators. There is anticipated to be a significant increase in the number of Class VI permit applications over the next 3 years in anticipation of a tax credit for geologic sequestration projects. The burden and cost associated with preparing Class VI permit applications and reviewing them is higher than for any other well class. This added about 44,121 hours to the operator burden estimate. Additionally, EPA revised its assumptions about the number of Class I, Class II, and Class III permit applications submitted, which are estimated to add 285,529 hours to the total annual burden for these operators.

  • Inventory changes. Between 2017 and 2020, the national injection well inventory decreased by approximately 52,000 wells. The inventory affects the number of respondents that perform monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities over the life of a project. EPA estimates that these changes will reduce the operator burden estimate by 64,774 hours. Most of this is associated with a significant reduction in the number of Class II operators, which is offset by increases in the number of Class I operators and Class III sites (and associated burden for these respondents).

  • Other adjustments in the ICR are related to adjustments in the estimated number of Class IV/endangering Class V wells that will close.


UIC Program Burden and Cost Reduction Efforts


EPA continues to explore options to reduce the reporting burden and cost to respondents, while maintaining the protective components of the UIC Program. This is primarily being accomplished by simplifying and clarifying the Program’s available electronic and paper-based reporting tools. EPA’s efforts are briefly described below.


  • EPA continues to review the UIC reporting forms to identify clarifications and improvements that can reduce burden to owners or operators of injection wells and improve the quality of submittals in order to streamline reporting and reduce the time needed to process UIC requests.


  • EPA will continue exploring improvements to its web-based reporting forms, including improvements to the user interface of the forms.


These improvements will make submissions easier and reduce the chance of incorrect submissions (and the need for time-consuming correspondence between the permitting authority and the applicant/owner or operator). See Appendix C for additional information.


6(g) Burden Statement


EPA estimates that, over the three years covered by this ICR, the total annual burden on injection well owners or operators and primacy agencies associated with UIC requirements will be 1,631,360 hours and the present value cost will be approximately $363.3 million per year. See Exhibit 6-7.


Exhibit 6-7

Annual Burden and Cost Associated with All Well Classes

2022-2024

Respondent Type

Burden (hours)

Labor Cost

Non-Labor Cost

Total Cost

Responses

Burden/ Response

Cost/ Response

Operators

1,400,950

$76,659,534

$276,069,465

$352,728,999

465,923.1

3.01

$757.05

Primacy States

230,411

$10,580,465

$0

$10,580,465

112,190.1

2.05

$94.31

Respondent total

1,631,360

$87,239,999

$276,069,465

$363,309,464

578,113.2

2.82

$628.44

EPA

42,516

$1,952,314

$0

$1,952,314

12,378.1

3.43

$157.72

TOTAL

1,673,876

$89,192,313

$276,069,465

$365,261,778

590,491.2

2.83

$618.57

Note: numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.


The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.82 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.


To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov. Use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359 and OMB control number 2040-0042 in any correspondence.

1 Throughout this ICR, reference to “States” includes Tribes and Territories pursuant to 40 CFR 144.3.

2 Primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) is vested in states that have UIC programs approved by EPA's Administrator. “Direct Implementation” (DI) refers to programs in states that are administered directly by EPA regional offices.

3 States that want primacy for any well classes must apply to EPA and provide information about their proposed program as specified at 40 CFR 145.22. (See Section 5(a)(1).) In some states, more than one agency in a state may oversee injection wells of various classes.

4 A USDW is defined at 40 CFR 144.3 as an aquifer or its portion which supplies any public water system or which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids and which is not an exempted aquifer.

5 Permits may be issued on an area basis or on an individual basis, except for hazardous waste injection wells and Class VI wells. Refer to Section 5(b) for a description of how the permitting process minimizes the information burden on owners and operators.

6 This requirement may be waived if the Regional Administrator determines that it is too burdensome (e.g., if the well is located in a populated area).

7 Alternative MIT methods (e.g., review of cementing record) may be approved by the Director.

8 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the reporting requirements covered by this information collection are consistent with the reporting and recordkeeping activities currently in practice by the respondents. For example, respondents generally may report required information in either electronic or hard-copy format, whichever is compatible with their facility practices.

9 Note: throughout this chapter, numbers may not appear to total due to rounding.

File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File TitleKristy Burt and my edits are highlighted in “Red”
AuthorKristy
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created2022-03-01
© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy