UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST April 15, 2003 Prepared by:

The Cadmus Group, Inc. Arlington, VA 22209 Prepared for:

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( b) Public Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Respondents and Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ( 4)( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ( 4)( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Information Collected: EPA Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5( a) State and Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Burden and Cost of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6( a) Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6( b) Respondent Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6( c) Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6( d) Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 1 Classification of Underground Injection Wells 2 2 Flow of Information in the UIC Program 4 1 Respondents' SIC Codes 4 2 Operator Paperwork Requirements 4 3 State Reporting Forms 5 1 Revised State Reporting Frequency 6 1A Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class I Hazardous Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class I Hazardous Wells: States 6 1B Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class I Nonhazardous Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class I Nonhazardous Wells: States 6 2 Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class II Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class II Wells: States 6 3 Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class III Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class III Wells: States 6 4 Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class IV/ Endangering Class V Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class IV/ Endangering Class V Wells: States 6 5 Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class V Wells: Operators Annual Burden and Costs Associated with Class V Wells: States 6 6 Annual State Burden and Cost Associated with Preparing 7520 Forms 6 7A Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class I Hazardous Well Data 6 7B Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class I Nonhazardous Well Data 6 8 Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class II Well Data 6 9 Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class III Well Data 6 10 Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class IV/ Endangering Class V Well Data 6 11 Federal Burden and Cost for Reviewing Class V Well Data 6 12 Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Costs 6 13 Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Costs 6 14 Change in Annual Respondent Burden 6 15 Change in Annual Respondent Costs LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Federal Register Notice on UIC Program Reporting Requirements APPENDIX B UIC Forms APPENDIX C 40 CFR Sections 144, 146, 147, and 148 1 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. Currently, 35 states have full primacy and 17 states are directly implemented by EPA regional offices. Five states have a combination of state oversight and direct implementation commonly referred to as " partial primacy." 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Underground Injection Control Program Information OMB # 2040 0042, EPA ICR Number 0370.18 1( b) Short Characterization The information collected upon extension of the approval of this ICR will be used by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) for the monitoring and enforcement of the Underground Injection Control ( UIC) portion of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). The purpose of the UIC Program is to establish a federal state regulatory system to ensure that actual or potential underground sources of drinking water ( USDWs) are not endangered by the underground injection of contaminants.

Monitoring and enforcement are primarily achieved through initial, quarterly, and annual reporting requirements. Information is gathered both at the state program level and at the regional level. Each Region has the role of implementing UIC programs for states that do not have their own UIC programs. 1 In addition, each Region must compile and submit information to EPA Headquarters from all UIC programs in its jurisdiction. This information is submitted in summary reports to EPA Headquarters.

EPA collects monitoring data and test results from operators of Class I, II, and III injection wells. Class IV wells are banned and operators of these wells must submit plugging and abandonment reports as they are closed. EPA requires operators of existing Class V motor vehicle waster disposal wells in ground water protection areas or other sensitive ground water areas to close these wells or apply for a permit to continue injecting. In general, Class V operators submit only a small subset of the information required of Class I, II, and III operators. Section 144.6 of 40 CFR describes the five injection well types ( see Exhibit 2 1). EPA also collects summary information on permits, compliance and enforcement, inspections, mechanical integrity testing, and inventory for all wells 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 3,275,836 hours ( an average of 1,091,945 hours per year), and the present value cost will be $ 200,713,515 ( an average of $ 66,904,505 per year). The burden per response is 2.59 hours, the cost per response is $ 158.43. 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 information collection. Need is demonstrated by describing the potential for contamination of USDWs and the statutory requirements that justify information collection to prevent 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 data 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 current and potential 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 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 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 in the initial permit application, and every five years 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 must be properly constructed or plugged. For this reason, plans for plugging and abandonment are submitted with the permit application. In addition, DI programs require that plugging and abandonment reports 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. This contamination pathway is tracked using two information collection requirements. First, permit information is used 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 bed zone. Pathway 4: Direct Injection Class IV wells, which inject into or above USDWs and have a high potential to endanger human health, are illegal. Most Class V wells inject nonhazardous fluids into or above formations that contain USDWs. These include, but are not limited to, motor vehicle waste disposal wells, cesspools, agricultural drainage wells, storm water drainage wells, industrial drainage wells, and untreated sewage waste disposal wells. In a regulatory effort to address the Class V wells that pose the greatest threat, EPA has banned the construction of new large capacity cesspools, and requires operators of existing large capacity cesspools to close their wells. EPA is also banning new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and is requiring operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in 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. Permit information regarding the proximity of underground injection wells to USDWs is considered by the permitting authority in making a determination of whether the wells are properly sited. Well operators are required to control injection pressure and conduct monitoring and testing to track any lateral migration of fluids.

Legal Authority Injection wells are regulated by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW), 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 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) of 1976. 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 him in establishing regulations under this title . . ."

The specific requirements for the UIC Program are established in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), Title 40, Sections 144 through 148 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. Information Collection Request 5 Section 145  State UIC Program Requirements. This section describes the requirements that state programs must meet and the method for obtaining program approval.

Section 146  UIC Program: Criteria and Standards. This section contains the technical criteria and standards that various classes of underground injection wells must meet. Monitoring and reporting criteria are outlined.

Section 147 State UIC Programs. This section describes the provisions of the UIC programs of individual states and territories.

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 Sections contain information collection requirements that are applicable to operators of underground injection wells and to administrators of primacy and DI programs. These sections of 40 CFR 144 148 are reproduced in Appendix C. Exhibit 2 1 describes the five classes of injections wells. A summary of the specific requirements for operators is given in Exhibit 4 2, Operator Paperwork Requirements; the paperwork requirements for states as respondents are presented in Exhibit 4 3, State Reporting Forms. Exhibit 2 1 Classification of Underground Injection 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.

Class V Injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III, or IV. 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.

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

° Publish minimum national requirements for effective state UIC programs;

° List states that need UIC programs;

° Make grants to states for developing and implementing UIC programs;

° Review proposed state programs and approve or disapprove them;

° Promulgate 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. Information Collection Request 7 2 The 7520 forms are described in Exhibit 4 3. In addition to these regulations, other rules are aimed at providing EPA with the information it needs to administer its program and to determine what new measures, if any, are necessary to achieve its statutory mandate.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA information users include regional and Headquarters staff who make decisions regarding UIC regulations, compliance and enforcement actions, funding for state and regional UIC programs, and strategic and policy issues related to the mission of OGWDW and EPA. Primacy agents in states use the summary information reported on the 7520 forms2 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 agent can use the summary reports it supplies to EPA Headquarters 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 permits reviewed.

Exhibit 2 2 charts the flow of information from operators, states, and Regions to EPA Headquarters. Operators submit data to states ( in primacy states), or to EPA regional offices ( in DI states). Each primacy state in turn submits the data to its respective EPA regional office, which reviews the information and forwards it, along with its own data from DI states, to EPA Headquarters. All information in the quarterly, semi annual, and annual reports received at EPA Headquarters is stored and analyzed using computerized databases. These reports are the only data available to EPA Headquarters to fulfill UIC program needs and responsibilities. The following sections give a more detailed analysis of the uses made of the collected information.

Headquarters' Management of the National Program EPA Headquarters uses reported information to respond to information requests and perform analyses for EPA management, the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and the public. Headquarters oversees primacy agents by using the reports to track, evaluate, and report on program performance. Performance targets and measures for EPA regional programs are established by EPA and tracked against Government Performance and Results Act ( GPRA) goals. EPA tracks high priority activities that guide the Regions in carrying out UIC program objectives. EPA negotiates with the Regions to obtain commitments for performance based on these guidelines.

In addition to its use for regional oversight purposes, state and regional information is also used to justify future program modifications. For example, the information collected may be used to determine if requirements pertaining to rule authorized wells or mechanical integrity testing are effective. State and regional data is used as background information in making these types of decisions.

Regional Oversight of Primacy Programs The primary use of quarterly, semi annual, and annual reports submitted to the Regions is to help the Regions oversee the performance of the primacy agents. The information is used to track individual state progress against commitments, and to ensure that state programs have the ability to take timely and appropriate action in response to direct threats to the public health due to contamination of USDWs.

Regions also have enforcement responsibilities and must use well specific information to track state enforcement response actions for all significant noncompliers ( SNCs), i. e., 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 state does not fulfill its responsibilities.

Like EPA Headquarters, the Regions use the data to develop regional operating budgets and program plans, allocate resources, track state by state performance, and respond to inquiries. The Regions are responsible for reviewing and verifying the information on the quarterly reports before sending them to EPA Headquarters. Information Collection Request 9 Region Submits to EPA HQ:

° Injection well inventory ° Permit review and issuance ° Inspections/ MIT testing ° Compliance evaluation ° Significant noncompliance evaluation ° Exceptions list report Exhibit 2.2 UIC Program Information Flowchart Headquarters Uses for Regional Submittals:

° National budget and program planning activities ° Resource allocation and State grant allotments ° Annual report of UIC Program ° Track program performances against expectations and commitments of Regions ° Management information for policy and program activities, briefings of Agency management ° Responses to Congressional, OMB, GAO, public ( FOIA) information requests EPA HEADQUARTERS EPA REGIONS DI Uses for Owner Submittals:

° Target inspection and enforcement activity ° Establish permit conditions and terms ° Track performance against plans Regional Oversight Uses for Primacy State Submittals:

° Establish budget and planning targets ° Negotiate State workplans and track State performance against commitments ° Evaluate States against expectations and overall Regional performance PRIMACY STATES Primacy State Uses for Owner Submittals:

° Target inspection and enforcement activity ° Establish permit terms and conditions ° Track performance against plans ° Identify violations and assess their significance for enforcement Primacy State Submits to Region:

° Injection well inventory ° Permit review and issuance ° Inspections/ MIT testing ° Compliance evaluation ° Significant noncompliance evaluation ° Exceptions list report Submits to Primacy State or EPA Region:

° Permit information ° Annual or quarterly report ° Notification of:

  Abandonment   Change of well ownership   Noncompliance OWNER/ OPERATOR Annually:

Semi

Annually:

Quarterly: Annually:

Semi

Annually:

Quarterly: Direct Implementation of State Programs In addition to their oversight responsibilities, EPA regional offices must implement the UIC Program in states without primacy. As administrators of UIC programs in DI states, EPA regional offices use information from operators in several ways.

First, initial permit application materials provide the information required by regional offices to determine if proposed underground injection wells are properly designed and sited to minimize the possibility of USDW contamination. The primary responsibility of a regional office is to use well information submitted prior to construction and during completion to ensure that injected fluids will remain in the selected injection zone and will not leak into areas that could result in contaminated USDWS.

Following permit approval and completion work, the permitting authority uses 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.

Regional offices with DI authority also use information required of operators to focus efforts on injection wells in need of enforcement attention. Operators who have been out of compliance for at least two consecutive quarters are identified on the exceptions list. These violators are targeted for enforcement action. 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria This Section discusses that 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 endanger USDWs; and discusses Paperwork Reduction Act general guidelines and provisions for confidentiality.

3( a) Nonduplication Well specific data obtained from operators of injection wells and the state reports that rely on such data comprise virtually all of the information covered by this ICR. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, this information is not required or collected by any other agency or regulation. The Department of Energy does collect information relating to production for enhanced recovery wells in its " Annual Report for Enhanced Oil Recovery ( EOR) Incentive" ( OMB Clearance No. 19054135). This information pertains 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 enhanced recovery wells.

Since both Class I and Class IV wells ( now banned) involve the injection of hazardous wastes, there is potential overlap between UIC programs under the 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 UIC hazardous waste well meets certain conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.64( c). Thus, although UIC hazardous waste wells are coregulated under RCRA and the SDWA, there is no duplication of information collection between RCRA and the UIC Program.

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 May 3, 2001 ( 66 FR 22225). The Agency received no comments on the draft ICR. A copy of the Federal Register Notice of this information collection is attached to this ICR as Appendix A.

3( c) Consultations Information collection requirements from operators and states have been evolving since 1980 as a result of periodic reassessment of the information needs of the UIC Program. Most recently, EPA has reevaluated these needs in conjunction with the Presidential directive to reduce existing paperwork requirements by 25 percent, and to reduce regular reporting by 50 percent. In July of 1995, EPA solicited input from state UIC Directors, operators, and other interested parties on revising the UIC Program to reduce burden. State officials suggested combining, simplifying, or eliminating some of the 7520 forms, or reducing the frequency at which primacy agents report this information to EPA. Operators suggested that EPA decrease the frequency at which operators report on injectate parameters or other testing results.

In developing burden and cost estimates and underlying assumptions, EPA consulted knowledgeable staff in the EPA regional offices and states that are most active in the UIC programs. Collectively, these offices are the permitting authorities for the majority of injection wells in each well class. In some cases, these officials contacted operators or consultants in the states and regions to solicit input on operator burden and costs. In August 1996, EPA held a meeting of regional, state, and industry staff to discuss the underlying ICR assumptions and estimated burden and cost associated with UIC activities. Members of the workgroup have reviewed this ICR. Furthermore, in 1997, EPA convened a workgroup of state and regional staff to review the 7520 reporting forms and make recommendations for improving them. This workgroup is frequently consulted on 7520 and ICR issues.

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) primacy state agencies.

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

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 undiscovered for a long time. EPA has determined that operator reporting at the specified frequencies for each well class are at the minimum protective frequency for the following reasons:

° State and DI programs use injectate pressure and volume data to ensure that the pressures caused by injection activities do not cause fractures to initiate in the confining zone. Less frequent monitoring would not provide the necessary data to ensure that injection does not initiate fractures in the confining zone or that injectate or formation fluids are not displaced into USDWs. Information Collection Request 13 ° MITs can reduce the amount of damage a well failure can cause to USDWs by detecting those failures. The degree to which this damage can be reduced depends on the frequency of MITs. Less frequent MITs would raise the potential for contamination of USDWs.

° Permitting authorities require timely data on the chemical composition of operators' injectate to ensure that potentially incompatible injected substances will not come into contact with each other.

Class I operating permits are currently renewed every ten years. This frequency is necessary to provide permitting authorities an opportunity to review facility operations to ensure that injection operations will not endanger USDWs.

State Primacy Agencies As Section 5( d) of this ICR states, EPA has recently reduced the frequency at which state primacy agencies report certain information to EPA via the 7520 forms. EPA has also deleted the Grant Utilization Form ( 7520 5). The Agency has reduced the frequency at which this information is reported to the greatest extent possible while continuing to ensure effective oversight of state primacy programs.

3( e) General Guidelines Two provisions of the UIC regulations exceed the Paperwork Reduction Act guideline for response time. Pursuant to 40 CFR 144.51( l) and 144.28( b), operators are required to report by phone within 24 hours and in writing within five days " 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.

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, states, and DI programs.

( 4)( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Operators of injection wells are identified by standard industrial classification ( SIC) codes. Operator respondents for underground injection wells are categorized by the industries that produce fluid wastes and the type of fluid injected into each well class. The SIC codes associated with each well class are listed in Exhibit 4 1.

Exhibit 4 1 Respondents' SIC Codes UIC Class SIC Code 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 # 4953 # Major Group 89 # Major Group 99 # Oil and gas extraction # Chemicals and allied products # Paper and allied products # Petroleum and coal products # Stone, clay and glass products # Primary metal industries # Electrical and electronic machinery # Transportation equipment # Transportation by air # Electric, gas, and sanitary services # Hazardous waste disposal # Services not elsewhere classified # Nonclassifiable establishments II # 1311 # 1321 # 1381 # Crude petroleum and natural gas # Natural gas liquids # Drilling oil and gas wells III # Major Group 10 # Major Group 14 # Metal mining # Mining and quarrying of non metallic minerals IV ( Banned) # NA # NA 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 # Agricultural or storm drainage wells # Domestic wastewater disposal wells # Industrial process disposal wells # 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 ( e. g., town garages) 3 Permits may be issued on an area basis as well as on an individual basis, except for hazardous waste injection wells. Refer to Section 5( b) for a description of how the permitting process minimizes the information burden on owners and operators. ( 4)( b) Information Requested ( 4)( b)( 1) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping, Required from Operators Required data items vary according to well class and authorization category ( permitted well vs. rule authorized well). The information required of operators is listed in Exhibit 4 2.

Initial Reporting Requirements Two methods are available for obtaining approval for underground injection: rule authorization and permitting. Existing Class II enhanced recovery ( II R) and hydrocarbon storage wells are authorized by rule for life and do not require permits. All new Class I, II, and III wells require permits. New Class V wells may be rule authorized, although, in some states or regions, operators of Class V wells may be required to obtain permits.

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. Operators must also submit a plugging and abandonment plan and information regarding financial responsibility. Authorization terminates if the operator fails to supply any required information, or if the well loses mechanical integrity.

Permitted Wells3 Operators of permitted wells must follow a two step permit application procedure. The operator must submit a permit application prior to construction, and a completion report 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, SIC code( s), and a description of the activities requiring a permit, [ all well Classes]; Information Collection Request 17 Exhibit 4 2 Operator Paperwork Requirements Activity Class I H I N II III V Provide Inventory Information

Permit Application List of Landowners

Area of Review Methods

Maps of Wells/ Area of Review

Corrective Action Plan

Maps and Cross Sections of USDWs

Names and Depths of USDWs

Maps and Cross Sections of Local Geology

Maps and Cross Sections of Regional Geology

Geological Data on Injection and Confining Zones

Operating Data

Formation Testing Program

Stimulation Program

Injection Procedures

Construction Details

Changes in Injected Fluid

Plans for Well Failures

Ambient Monitoring Program

Plugging and Abandonment Plan

Financial Assurance

Completion Report Results of Logs and Tests Performed During Construction

MIT Results

Anticipated Maximum Injection Pressure & Flow Rate

Formation Testing Results

Actual Injection Procedure

Hydrogeologic Compatibility/ Compatibility of Well Materials

Status of Corrective Action

Monitoring and Reporting Analyze and Report on Chemical Composition of Injectate

Record and Report Injection Pressure, Volume, & Flow Rate

Perform and Report on MIT

Conduct and Report on Ambient Monitoring

Conduct and Report on Pressure Fall Off Test

Recordkeeping Retain Monitoring, Testing, Permitting Records

Closure Closure Report ( DI only)

4 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). Some regions may also require operators to notify all landowners of their intent to construct the well.

List of Landowners: a list of landowners within one quarter mile of the facility ( in DI programs) [ all well Classes]; 4 ° Area of Review Methods: methods and calculations used to determine the area of review ( AoR) [ Classes I, II, and III];

° Maps of Wells/ Area of Review: a tabulation of all wells within the AoR ( within 1/ 4 mile of the well, or within 2 miles of a Class I hazardous well) that penetrate the injection zone or the confining zone [ Classes I, II, and III];

° Corrective Action Plan: a plan for corrective action for wells within the AoR that are not properly plugged [ Classes I, II, and III];

° Geological and Hydrogeological 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 and III]; names and depths of USDWs [ Class II];

° 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, and III];

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

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

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

° Construction Details: construction plans, including schematic drawings of the surface and subsurface details of the system [ Classes I and III];

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

° 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]; Information Collection Request 19 ° Ambient Monitoring Program: planned ambient monitoring program, including the location of monitoring wells and monitoring devices, and the proposed sampling frequency [ Classes I and III, optional for Class II];

° Plugging and Abandonment Plan: plans for closing the well, including type and placement of plugs to be used [ Classes I, II, and III]; and ° Financial Assurance: evidence of financial responsibility for closure, such as surety bonds or financial statements [ Classes I, II, III].

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

° The results of deviation checks, other logs and tests [ Classes I, II, and III];

° 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, and III];

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

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

° Actual injection procedure [ Classes I, II, and III];

° Report on hydrogeological compatibility and the compatibility of well materials [ Class I]; and ° The status of corrective action at improperly abandoned wells within the AoR [ Classes I, II, and III].

Operators of Class I hazardous waste wells must adhere to more stringent permit application requirements than those required of other classes of wells. Operators 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 computer 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 disposal site. In particular, the petition must prove that the waste will not reach the roof of the injection zone or a conduit within the injection zone within 10,000 years. This is known as the Fluid Flow Petition.

° Hydrogeological Compatibility/ Compatibility of Well Material Report. Operators of Class I hazardous waste wells must demonstrate hydrogeological compatibility ( i. e., determine 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., demonstrate 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 written waste analysis plan that describes procedures for obtaining 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 hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site; the physicochemical nature of the waste stream; and proof of conformance with AoR requirements.

Class V facilities generally are rule authorized. Operators of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas or other sensitive ground water areas must apply for a permit to continue injecting. Permitting authorities may also require other 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 which includes a demonstration of financial responsibility for closure. Operators are also required to sample their injectate and submit the results of analysis.

Monitoring and Testing Requirements All Class I, II, and III operators must observe injection pressure, rate, and cumulative volume and demonstrate mechanical integrity. Requirements for other monitoring and testing activities vary by class. The following are the specific monitoring and testing activities for each class:

Monitor injection pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume of injected fluids [ continuously for Class I, weekly for Class II disposal wells ( II D), monthly for Information Collection Request 21 5 Substitute MIT methods ( e. g., review of cementing records) may be approved by the Director. Class II R, and semi monthly for Class III]; 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, and permitted Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells];

Conduct annual sludge monitoring [ Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells];

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

  casing pressure test [ annually for Class I hazardous; 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 [ every five years for Class I and Class III ( salt solution mining)] 5;

Conduct ambient monitoring, including a pressure fall off test [ annually for Class I]; and

Monitor wells completed in the injection zone and in overlying USDWS [ semimonthly for active Class III wells, monthly for Class III facilities in restoration]. 6 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. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements All permitted and rule authorized wells must report to state or DI agencies on the results of required monitoring and testing. 6 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 within 24 hours; or any noncompliance with permit conditions.

Scheduled reporting requirements include the following:

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

° Class I nonhazardous facility 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 motor vehicle waste disposal well operators must report quarterly on injectate monitoring and annually on sludge monitoring.

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 hazard to USDWs. Such information may include: evidence of ground water monitoring, including periodic reports of such monitoring; periodic reports on analysis of injected fluids; and 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. Information Collection Request 23 Closure Requirements When closing their wells, operators must submit to the permitting authority a plugging and abandonment report which indicates that the well was plugged in accordance with the plugging and abandonment plan. Operators who choose to plug 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.

( 4)( b)( 2) Data Items Including Recordkeeping, Required from State and DI Programs Primacy and DI agencies submit information on wells within their jurisdiction to Headquarters via the 7520 forms. Each of the forms that agencies must submit as respondents, the reporting frequency, and the data items reported are listed in Exhibit 4 3 and are addressed in Section 2( b). Copies of the forms are provided in Appendix B. Exhibit 4 3 State Reporting Forms Form Frequency Information Collected Permit Review and Issuance ( 7520 1) Annual Information on permit determinations ( i. e., the number of permits issued and not issued, and permit modifications), permit file reviews, the number of ruleauthorized wells reviewed, AoR reviews, and corrective action performed.

Compliance Evaluation ( 7520 2A) Semi annual Enforcement actions, including administrative actions and civil and criminal actions.

Compliance Evaluation  Significant Noncompliance ( 7520 2B) Semi annual Injection wells identified as being in significant noncompliance ( SNC) with statutory requirements, and enforcement actions against SNCs and returns of wells to compliance; contamination of USDWs; and closures.

Mechanical Integrity Test/ Remedial Actions ( 7520 3) Annual Results of inspections and MITs, and remedial actions conducted for any test failures.

Quarterly Exceptions List ( 7520 4) Quarterly Wells that have remained in significant noncompliance for two or more consecutive quarters and have not been returned to compliance or been subject to a formal enforcement action.

Inventory of Wells Information Form ( 7520 16) [ Formerly 7500 48] Annual Inventory information, including the facility name; the legal contact of the facility; and well information, including type, number, and operating status of injection wells.

5. Information Collected: EPA Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management Section 5( a) describes state oversight of operators and EPA activities with respect 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 collection schedule.

5( a) State and Agency Activities 5( a)( 1) State Activities Under Section 1422 of the SDWA, states that adopt UIC regulations at least as stringent as the federal requirements may be granted primacy for the UIC Program. Under Section 1425, state programs that regulate oil and gas must demonstrate that their program " represents and Information Collection Request 25 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 overseeing the permitting of wells within their states. Primacy agents receive and review permit applications from operators, solicit and respond to public comments, and issue final decisions on permit applications. States also review completion reports and associated testing results to verify that new wells have been constructed in accordance with construction standards.

State agencies review injectate and ambient monitoring data submitted by operators; they also review MITs and pressure fall off tests. Many states witness some or all MITs and plugging and abandonments. State primacy agencies also respond to occasional reporting submitted by operators, conduct periodic permit reviews, and respond to operators' requests for permit modifications.

5( a)( 2) Agency Activities EPA regions oversee injection wells in those states that do not have approved primacy programs. The regions perform the same activities as state primacy agents. In addition, regional offices review no migration petitions submitted by Class I hazardous facility operators in both primacy and DI states. Regional staff review reports on MITs and pressure fall off tests performed in the DI programs, and in some cases, tests on wells in primacy states. DI programs also review closure reports required of operators when they abandon their wells.

EPA Headquarters activities consist of compiling the regional summary information on permit reviews and issuance; compliance evaluation, enforcement and inspections information, and inventory data reported on the 7520 forms. EPA enters this data into a computerized database that is accessible to the Regions so that they may verify it for accuracy.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The Mission Needs Assessment conducted in 1987 88 identified individual data systems at the program implementation ( state and DI) level as the most important components of the UIC data management system. These state systems maintain detailed data about each well regulated by the UIC Program. This data is the source of summary information submitted to the Regions and EPA Headquarters for oversight and program management.

To ensure that states meet the information requirements in the minimum data set, the UIC Program developed a prototype data system to assist interested states in enhancing their current data collection and information management capabilities. The prototype has the following capabilities: ° Incorporates UIC minimum data set;

° Tracks on a well by well basis; and ° Establishes relationships between individual wells and daily activities.

The Well Activities Tracking, Evaluation and Reporting System ( WATERS) is an optional system that enables users to easily compile and produce the reports EPA requires. The system, which tracks individual wells, is the product of a cooperative effort between EPA, several regions, and several state programs. The system generates the 7520 forms based on the well specific information it contains. These reports can be printed or submitted to EPA on disk. WATERS Version 2 was distributed to all states and Regions in FY 1994.

OGWDW is assessing the feasibility of allowing state and federal UIC programs to report electronically the information currently submitted on the 7520 forms. Electronic reporting involves transmitting UIC data in a standard electronic format that can be readily incorporated into the Headquarters UIC databases without manual data entry. Electronic reporting supports the Agency's effort to streamline the UIC Program by reducing the reporting burden on the states and improving EPA's data collection methods. Electronic reporting offers an opportunity to:

° Reduce data entry; ° Reduce mailing costs; ° Reduce the routine process of handling paperwork in the reporting process; ° Reduce or eliminate the need to store large quantities of paper documents; and ° Increase the accuracy of reports submitted to OGWDW and OECA.

Reporting alternatives under consideration include e mail, a World Wide Web site, a File Transfer Protocol site, Lotus Notes, and a bulletin board.

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

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

The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or Information Collection Request 27

An exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof.

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

4953 Hazardous waste disposal

Major Group 89: Services not elsewhere classified

Major Group 99: Nonclassifiable 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, 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 clearly exceed both the 500 employee and the 1,500 employee standards. Examples include Allied Chemical, Bethlehem Steel, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, General Electric, Monsanto, Shell, and USX. The hazardous waste disposal firms that own and operate Class I wells ( SIC code 4953) are believed 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 well 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 at the same time assuring 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 that 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 of 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 operators of Class II wells 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.

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 applicable size standard for both groups is 500 or fewer employees. According to the preamble to the UIC regulations of 1980 ( 45 FR 42472), the operators of these wells are large, diversified corporations, well above the size standard of 500 employees. There is no reason to believe that there has been any material change in the size of the firms since that analysis was done. Information Collection Request 29 Class V EPA estimates that the majority of facilities affected by the Class V rule will be small businesses. To reduce the impact of the rule on small entities, EPA has attempted to keep recordkeeping, reporting, and other administrative requirements to a minimum in order to provide regulatory relief to small entities while protecting drinking water supplies. EPA also convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA), to explore options for minimizing economic impacts on small entities.

The economic analysis prepared for the final rule includes a complete, final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis addressing all activities, including reporting and recordkeeping activities, required of small entities.

The monitoring and testing requirements for permitted facilities are fairly minimal compared to the other classes of wells. Most other Class V facilities do not have collection requirements other than to provide inventory information.

5( d) Collection Schedule EPA developed the schedule for information collection and reporting to minimize the amount of information collected while ensuring that enough information is given for appropriate and timely oversight, evaluation, and enforcement. The rationale for operator and state reporting frequencies is described below. A complete description of the collection requirements can be found in Section 4.

5( d)( 1) Operator Reporting In determining the reporting schedule for each class of wells, EPA considered the potential for each class to contaminate USDWs. Operators of Class I, III, and some Class V wells must report monitoring results quarterly; Class II operators report annually. The regular reporting of these data is essential to protecting USDWs.

5( d)( 2) State Reporting In response to the President's April 24, 1995 directive to reduce regularly scheduled reporting frequencies by one half, except in cases where such action would not adequately protect the environment, in FY 1996 EPA reduced the frequency of certain state UIC reporting. EPA has also discontinued the requirement that states submit the grant utilization form ( 7520 5). Exhibit 5 1 summarizes the revised reporting frequencies for the 7520 forms. Exhibit 5 1 Revised State Reporting Frequencies Number Form Old Frequency New Frequency 7520 1 Permit Review and Issuance Quarterly Annual 7520 2A Compliance Evaluation Quarterly Semi annual 7520 2B Compliance Evaluation for Significant Noncompliance Quarterly Semi annual 7520 3 Mechanical Integrity Test/ Remedial Actions Quarterly Annual 7520 4 Quarterly Exceptions List Quarterly Quarterly 7520 5 Summary of UIC Grant Utilization Annual Discontinued 7520 16 Inventory of Injection Wells Annual Annual 7520 1 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 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 the states to meet time schedules and goals sooner than anticipated. Both occurrences have a potential for shifts in workload and resource distribution.

7520 2A Compliance Evaluation; 7520 2B Significant Non compliance The justification for semi annual reporting of compliance information is based on EPA efforts to be routinely and frequently informed of violations to regulations in effect under Section 1421 of the SDWA. EPA must be kept informed in order to ( a) oversee and encourage states' actions on resolving violations or enforcing against violators, and ( b) to take direct federal action where appropriate 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, states provided EPA with the above information on an annual basis. States then agreed to voluntarily supply the data on a quarterly basis when it became obvious that EPA Headquarters could not direct an effective federal enforcement program using data received only once a year. EPA has recently determined that semi annual reporting of this information is sufficiently frequent to track compliance information. Information Collection Request 31 7520 3 Inspections/ Mechanical Integrity Testing Inspections are the principal method of identifying instances of noncompliance. Annual inspection information is used to monitor states' performance on inspections. Inspections have resulted in criminal indictment and imprisonment of well owners. Annual inspection information assures 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 environmentally sound. Annual MIT information is used to evaluate the MIT program. Operators must record and submit information on the types, frequencies, results, and remedial actions taken on a series of MIT tests.

7520 4 Quarterly Exceptions List EPA needs quarterly information on SNCs that have been out of compliance for two or more consecutive quarters. The Agency uses this information to determine whether timely and appropriate actions have been taken by primacy authorities and to track enforcement activities, as these wells pose the greatest threat to USDWs.

7520 16 Inventory of Injection Wells Annual reporting on inventory data, as required by 40 CFR 144.8, is necessary for effective oversight of the UIC Program. Primacy states, 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. 7 Contractor hours are not included in the operator burden estimates.

8 Several state primacy agencies and EPA regional offices solicited operator input on burden hours and costs. 6. Burden and Cost of the Collection This section contains EPA's estimates of respondent burden hours and costs 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, including state primacy agencies. Section 6( b) contains estimates of respondent costs for the information collection. Section 6( c) summarizes federal burden and costs 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 1998 UIC Program ICR. The burden statement for this information collection is in Section 6( g).

6( a) Respondent Burden EPA has calculated respondent burden hours for each information collection, reporting, and recordkeeping activity required of well operators and state primacy agencies. Because required data items vary by well class, separate operator and state burden estimates have been prepared for each class. Exhibits 6 1A through 6 6 contain detailed estimates of the number of respondents and unit burden hours for required paperwork related activities.

EPA recognizes that many UIC information collection activities are performed by contractors. The operator unit burdens reported in this section represent a composite of operator time to both perform an information collection activity, and to supervise a contractor when the contractor performs the activity. 7 The mix of operator versus contractor labor varies by activity and by well class. Contractor costs are included in the estimates of operator unit costs.

Operator burden hours are derived from estimates provided by UIC Program officers at EPA Headquarters, staff in EPA regional offices, and selected operators [ See Section 3( c)]. 8 Estimates of the number of respondents are based upon the 1995 injection well inventory or projections based on data from key UIC states. The following sections provide additional information on the burden estimates in the exhibits.

6( a)( 1) Burden Associated with Class I Wells EPA's estimate of the annual paperwork burden on operators for permitting, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, and closing their facilities and state burden for administering Class I hazardous and Class I nonhazardous programs are presented in Exhibits 6 1A and Exhibit 6 1B, respectively. Legal, managerial, technical, and clerical staff hours are shown; Column A presents the total unit burden for each activity. Information Collection Request 33 Class I facility operators rely on contractors to assist them with most information collection activities, including initial/ start up activities ( e. g., permit applications, completion reports, and no migration petitions); monitoring and testing ( e. g., ambient monitoring, pressure fall off tests, and MITs); closure related reporting; and other paperwork activities ( e. g., permit and petition modifications). The operator burdens presented in Column A of Exhibits 6 1A and 6 1B largely reflect the time to provide contractor oversight and furnish information to contractors. The costs associated with contractor labor and other contractor services are presented in Column C of Exhibits 6 1A and 6 1B.

EPA estimates that 70 percent of the new Class I permits issued will be for newly constructed wells at existing facilities, and that much of the information these applicants are required to submit is likely to have been developed in connection with permitting other wells and, therefore, already exists for the facility. EPA assumes the remaining 30 percent of permits will be issued for wells at new facilities, and the burden associated with applying for a permit will be greater. Thus, the unit burdens presented in this ICR are a composite of the burdens for permitting new wells at both new and existing facilities.

EPA assumes that some activities required of Class I permit applicants are customary business practices. The burden presented in this ICR is the incremental time and cost for presenting the information in a format acceptable to permitting authorities and for using EPAapproved tests.

Knowledge of subsurface geology is necessary to site a well and locate a subsurface zone suitable for injection. EPA assumes that 50 percent of the geological characterization required of permit applicants is customary business practice. Most of the incremental ICR burden is attributable to the requirement for submitting detailed maps of local geology.

Operators would customarily develop and conduct formation testing and stimulation programs for the same reasons they would develop geological data. EPA estimates that 50 percent of the required program development and testing is customary business practice.

Operators would probably develop and retain contingency plans to reduce potential liability should a well failure occur, and develop closure plans to reduce potential liability when they close their facility. EPA assumes that 25 percent of the burden to develop these plans is customary business practice.

Facility engineers would normally prepare construction schematics and operating data during the planning and design of an injection facility; EPA estimates that 75 percent of the burden associated with compiling this data is customary business practice.

As part of their overall industrial process, operators would normally develop injectate composition data and test the compatibility of the waste stream with well materials. EPA assumes that 50 percent of the time and cost to develop a waste analysis plan and to conduct waste compatibility testing is customary business practice.

During construction, operators would probably conduct deviation checks and other logs to verify that drilling is progressing within expected parameters. EPA estimates that 50 percent of the requirement to conduct deviation checks and other logs and tests is customary business practice.

Operators would routinely observe injection pressure, flow rate, volume, and temperature, and analyze the chemical composition of their wastes to verify the proper operation of their wells, EPA assumes that nearly all of the burden for continuous monitoring and 75 percent of the burden to perform chemical analyses of their injectate is customary business practice.

( 6)( a)( 1)( A) Class I Hazardous Facilities Operator activities associated with Class I hazardous facilities include: permitting and start up related reporting; permit renewals and modifications of permits or petitions; monitoring; reporting and recordkeeping; and closure related paperwork.

Initial Permitting/ Start up EPA estimates that, of the new Class I hazardous waste facility operating permits issued each year, most will be for new wells at existing facilities. Thus, in some cases, operators will adapt existing materials for their permit applications. Note that for permitting activities, the unit burdens are expressed on a per application basis.

EPA estimates that the operator burden associated with applying for Class I hazardous waste injection permits will be 394 hours per permit. ( This unit burden incorporates the above assumptions about customary business practices.) Exhibit 6 1A contains burden estimates for specific components of the permit application. EPA's calculation of operator burden and contractor labor costs above customary business practices is based on the following assumptions:

Operators, rather than contractors, will gather the facility description and location information necessary to complete the permit application form;

AoR studies in support of the application will encompass portions of previous AoR studies at the facility;

The burden for developing a corrective action plan assumes that 10 percent of operators will be required to revise their corrective action plan at the request of the permitting authority; and Information Collection Request 35

The requirement that operators of active hazardous waste facilities gather and submit site investigation information [ 40 CFR 144.31( g)( 3)] duplicates RCRA requirements and is not included in this burden estimate.

EPA estimates that the burden on Class I hazardous facility operators associated with preparing and submitting completion reports will be 49 hours per facility. The burden to perform specific activities related to completion reports is presented in Exhibit 6 1A. As with permitting activities, EPA anticipates that much of the testing reported in the completion report would normally be performed in the course of business.

In addition to submitting permit applications, operators of newly constructed hazardous Class I wells will submit no migration petitions to the EPA Regional Administrator. EPA assumes that no migration petition requirements impose an additional 569 burden hours on each operator. EPA anticipates that operators already have compiled much of the extensive data required to support a no migration petition in the process of permitting and preparing petitions for existing wells at their facilities, during the permit application process, or as a customary business practice.

Permit Renewals and Modifications Class I operating permits are valid for up to ten years, after which, operators must apply to renew their permits. Additionally, from time to time, operators of Class I hazardous facilities may need to modify their permits or their no migration petitions. Paperwork submittals include: permit renewals, permit modifications, and petition modifications.

EPA anticipates that the burden associated with renewing permits for a Class I hazardous facility will be 71.5 hours per renewal. Requirements for permit renewals vary among states and regions, ranging from submitting a letter of intent to continue operating the facility to an application similar in scope to one for a new permit. EPA assumes that, for renewal applications, Class I hazardous facility operators will be required to submit facility identification information and those attachments that have changed or been updated since their last application, such as the AoR, corrective action plan, closure plan, waste identification information, and financial responsibility information. EPA assumes that Class I hazardous facility operators will not be required to submit no migration petitions in support of permit renewal applications.

EPA estimates the operator burden for overseeing contractor activities associated with preparing and submitting a request for a permit modification is 10 hours per facility, and the burden associated with modifying a no migration petition is 195 hours. Monitoring/ Testing As indicated above, EPA assumes that operators of Class I hazardous facilities would routinely observe injection pressure, flow rate, volume, and temperature in the normal course of business. EPA estimates an incremental annual burden of 5.7 hours per facility beyond customary business practice.

Class I hazardous facility operators must also monitor the chemical composition of their wastes according to the waste analysis plan submitted with their permit application. As with monitoring of injection pressure, flow rate, and volume, EPA assumes that operators would perform some chemical monitoring during the course of business. EPA estimates the additional annual burden for chemical monitoring is 38 hours per facility per quarter for operators to collect samples and send them to commercial laboratories for analysis. In addition, EPA assumes that, for various reasons, permitting authorities will require 10 percent of facilities to conduct additional monitoring under 40 CFR 146.68( a)( 3), and that the total burden will be 7.6 hours per facility per quarter. EPA assumes that all monitoring will be conducted quarterly.

Class I hazardous facility operators must conduct a pressure fall off test every year; EPA estimates that the annual burden associated with this requirement will be 9 hours per facility. EPA estimates that the total burden associated with required annual ambient monitoring at Class I hazardous facilities will be 2.3 hours per facility.

The burden associated conducting annual MITs ( i. e., conducting a casing pressure test and radioactive tracer survey), and five year MITs, which also include temperature, noise, or other logs to check for movement along the borehole is estimated to be 38 hours per facility.

Finally, operators must conduct casing inspection logs when their wells are worked over; EPA estimates the total annual burden will be 19 hours per log.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Operators of Class I hazardous facilities will spend 104 hours per facility reporting the results of required monitoring and testing each year: this includes 25 hours per report for quarterly monitoring reports, and 4 hours to report on the results of MITs. In addition, EPA assumes that 5 percent of operators will spend 3 to 6 hours annually submitting occasional reports ( e. g., on changes to the facility; planned workovers; noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance; or events triggering alarms or shutdown devices). Operators will also spend one hour submitting revised plugging and abandonment cost estimates.

EPA estimates the annual recordkeeping burden for Class I hazardous facilities to be 5 hours. 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. Information Collection Request 37 Closure EPA anticipates that one Class I hazardous well will close during each year of the life of this ICR, and the total annual burden associated with closure is 72 hours. This includes 2 hours to notify the Regional Administrator prior to closing, 6 hours to perform pressure fall off tests, 20 hours for MITs, and 40 hours for a closure report. EPA assumes that the operator will not revise the closure plan or the post closure care plan. The operator will also spend 4.5 hours on thirdparty notification activities, such as notifying state or local zoning or drilling authorities and the Regional Administrator following closure.

6( a)( 1)( B) Class I Nonhazardous Facilities Paperwork requirements for operators of Class I nonhazardous facilities include permitting and start up related reporting, permit renewals and modifications, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, and closure related paperwork activities.

Initial Permitting/ Start up As was the case for Class I hazardous facilities, EPA estimates that the majority of the new nonhazardous waste injection permits issued each year will be for new wells at existing facilities. Unit burdens are reported on a per application basis.

Requirements associated with permit applications add 252 hours to the customary business activities of Class I nonhazardous facility operators. Column A of Exhibit 6 1B presents EPA's estimates of burdens for specific components of a permit application. Class I nonhazardous waste permit applicants must submit much of the same information as operators of hazardous facilities. EPA assumes that the burden on nonhazardous facilities is the same as that for Class I hazardous waste facilities, with the exception of the following:

Class I nonhazardous facility operators will study a smaller AoR. Consequently, the burden for the AoR study and for developing a corrective action plan for wells in the AoR will be lower for these operators.

Development of injectate testing programs will be less burdensome for nonhazardous facility operators, due to the less hazardous nature of their injectate.

Nonhazardous facility operators are not required to develop waste analysis plans or plans to reduce the quantity or toxicity of their injectate; nor are they required to gather and submit hazardous waste release information.

EPA estimates that the unit burden on Class I nonhazardous facility operators for preparing and submitting completion reports is 47 hours. This unit burden varies from that for Class I hazardous facilities, as Class I nonhazardous facility operators are not required to submit information on the calculated AoR. Burden estimates for specific activities associated with completion of new wells are presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 1B.

Permit Renewals/ Modifications As with hazardous facility operators, EPA assumes that applicants for nonhazardous injection permit renewals will submit only those attachments to the application form that have changed since the original application. Each renewal application will take an estimated 21 hours. EPA estimates the operator burden associated with contractor oversight to prepare and submit a request for a permit modification to be 8 hours.

Monitoring/ Testing EPA assumes that operator staff will observe and record injection pressure, flow rate, volume and temperature and sample their injectate periodically as normal business activities; however to comply with UIC requirements, operators spend more time on these activities than they normally would. Class I nonhazardous facility operators will spend 38 hours per quarter to monitor their injectate; 5.7 hours to monitor injection pressure, flow rate, and volume; 1.9 hours to conduct ambient monitoring; and 7.6 hours to conduct an annual pressure fall off test. In addition, approximately 32 operators will spend 38 hours to demonstrate mechanical integrity ( i. e., five year MIT).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Operators will spend 16 hours per facility reporting quarterly on the chemical and physical characteristics of injectate, flow rate, and volume. Class I nonhazardous facility operators will spend 25 hours per facility to report on the results of ambient monitoring and the pressure fall off test.

EPA assumes that Class I nonhazardous facility operators will spend one hour each year to update and submit plugging and abandonment cost estimates. EPA also assumes that operators will spend 4 to 6 hours submitting additional reports ( e. g., of changes to the facility; planned workovers; noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance; or events triggering an alarm or shutdown).

EPA estimates the annual recordkeeping burden on Class I nonhazardous facilities to maintain monitoring information, calibration and maintenance records, required reports, application data, and monitoring results for three years will be 4 hours per facility.

Closure EPA estimates the annual burden on operators of Class I nonhazardous facilities associated with closure is 2 hours, for notifying the Director.

( 6)( a)( 1)( C) Burden on Primacy Agencies Associated with Class I Wells Information Collection Request 39 State primacy agencies' burden as users of data associated with implementing Class I programs arise from program oversight, reviewing and responding to permit applications and completion reports, monitoring and testing data, and closure reports submitted by operators within their states. State burden associated with oversight of Class I programs is presented in Column A of Exhibits 6 1A and 6 1B.

EPA estimates that states will spend from 20 to 62 hours per permit application reviewing applications for hazardous or nonhazardous Class I wells ( depending on whether the permit is issued or denied), and 30 hours reviewing requests for permit modifications or renewals. EPA regional offices review all no migration petitions and petition modification requests submitted by operators of Class I hazardous waste injection facilities; however, state primacy agencies assist the regions with this review. States spend 28 hours per no migration petition application and 10 hours per petition modification request on this assistance.

State primacy agencies spend from 2 to 8 hours per report reviewing monitoring and MIT data or occasional reports submitted by operators ( details are presented in Exhibits 6 1A and 6 1B). States spend one hour reviewing plugging and abandonment reports submitted by operators of Class I nonhazardous waste facilities, and 11 hours reviewing reports and testing results associated with closure of hazardous waste facilities.

6( a)( 2) Burden Associated with Class II Wells EPA's estimate of the annual paperwork burden on operators for permitting, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, and closing wells, and state burden for administering Class II programs, are presented in Exhibit 6 2. Legal, managerial, technical, and clerical staff hours are shown; Column A presents the total unit burden for each activity.

( 6)( a)( 2)( A) Class II Operators Initial Permitting/ Start up EPA anticipates that 28 percent of Class II permit applications will be for area permits and 73 percent will be for individual permits. On average, each area permit application will cover 3.1 wells. EPA estimates that 85 percent of the applications will be approved. EPA or state primacy agencies will deny applications that do not meet construction standards and others will be withdrawn by owners. 9 The Cadmus Group, Inc., Technical Issues Paper for Developing Area of Review Guidance ( Draft), Contract No. 68 C4 0011, Work Assignment No. 1 38 ( September 8, 1995). The average burden for preparing permit application forms and the supporting documentation is approximately 32 hours per application. The time that a particular operator will spend on a permit application will likely vary from approximately 6 hours to more than 50 hours, depending on the specific state submission requirements, the operator's level of experience, whether the application is for an individual or an area permit, the use of contractors, and other factors. The following paragraphs summarize the burdens for various components of a Class II permit application. EPA estimates that operators will spend 2.5 hours per applicant to read the application directions and fill out the permit application form. With respect to the supporting documentation, EPA assumes that operators would normally prepare a well schematic and some geological, hydrogeological, and operating data in the course of business, and/ or utilize existing data for the project. For area permits, the operator generally submits supporting data for a representative well. Exhibit 6 2 provides estimates of the time beyond customary business practice required to prepare the attachments to a Class II permit application. EPA estimates that permit applicants will spend an average of:

9.5 hours to prepare geological data on injection and confining zones;

6 hours to prepare plugging and abandonment plans;

2.5 hours to determine the name and depth to the bottom of USDWs;

3 hours to prepare schematics of the wells;

2 hours to prepare proposed operating data; and

2 hours to prepare financial responsibility information.

Based on previous studies of state AoR practices and requirements, EPA projects that state primacy agencies and EPA Regions will determine that a complete AoR is not necessary for approximately 60 percent of Class II permit applicants. 9 A complete AoR study may not be performed because the:

AoR is entirely overlapped by the AoRs of wells previously studied.

State primacy agency has cross referenced AoR studies, ensuring AoR coverage.

Operator has been granted a state variance based on factors relating to geologic setting, and/ or well conditions.

Well is located in a unitized project, and many of the elements of AoR studies were previously performed during unitization. Information Collection Request 41 10 EPA estimates that some operators will utilize contract AoR services. The unit burden for operators assumes that operators will perform about 67 percent of the AoR burden themselves and contract out for the remaining 33 percent.

11 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah perform some or all of the tasks involved in an AoR study. Previous EPA studies also have found that many state primacy agencies perform all or most of the tasks involved in the AoR study. In these cases, the operator typically submits only a map of the AoR and a list of wells in the AoR. EPA projects that approximately 19 percent of applicants will submit an AoR map and an AoR study as part of the permit application. Each AoR map and study will require an average of 5 hours of operator time. 10 Another 22 percent of applicants will submit an AoR map and a listing of the wells in the AoR, and the state primacy agency will perform most or all of the tasks involved in the AoR study. 11 The operator time to prepare the map and listing of wells is about one hour.

Based on the historical incidence of corrective action, EPA estimates that 90 percent of permit applicants will submit brief corrective action plans demonstrating that corrective action is not necessary to address potential conduits to USDWs in the AoR. Each of these plans will require one hour to prepare. The remaining 10 percent of applicants will submit more complex corrective action plans to address specific problems identified by the AoR study. Each comprehensive corrective action plan will take approximately 25 hours to prepare. Thus, the average time to prepare a corrective action plan is 3.4 hours. EPA regional or state primacy staff will require 20 percent of applicants to revise their complex corrective action plans. Each revised plan will take about 11.3 hours to prepare.

Unless exempted by the Director, operators in DI programs are required to submit a list of landowners within ¼ mile of the facility boundary. EPA estimates that these applicants will each take 1.2 hours to research property ownership records and prepare the list. This unit burden assumes that operators will supply about 30 percent of the effort, and the remaining 70 percent will be performed by contractors.

Prior to obtaining approval to begin injection, operators must submit completion reports for each new Class II well. With the completion report, operators must submit results of MITs and any well logs and tests required by the Director. Operators will take approximately 4 hours per well to fill out the completion form and gather the supporting documentation. The MIT will require approximately 1.7 hours of operator time, given current MIT practices for various completion types.

Most operators will submit logs for offset wells in their projects. EPA projects that Directors will require some permit applicants to perform and report on new well logs and tests, 12 This estimate is based on operator data from Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. such as cement bond, temperature, or density logs. Directors are more likely to require additional logs and tests for II D wells than for II R wells. EPA assumes that operators will perform additional logs and tests for 50 percent of new II D wells and 5 percent of new II R wells. Each of the logs and tests will take approximately 2.4 hours of operator time, primarily to supervise contractors.

Permit Reviews/ Modifications Class II permits are valid " up to the operating life of the facility" [ 40 CFR 144.36]. While the regulations do not require permit renewals, most permits are reviewed every five years. These reviews may be formal compliance reviews or informal reviews, usually conducted in conjunction with reviews of MIT results. Operators may be required to respond to any issues raised during the permit review. For purposes of calculating operator burden, EPA assumes that each operator will take 3 hours to respond to issues raised during the review.

Operators occasionally submit requests for permit modifications in response to changes in well ownership or injection practices, to add wells to existing area permits, and for other reasons. EPA expects that the average time to prepare each request is 4 hours.

Monitoring/ Testing For purposes of estimating the number of respondents for monitoring and testing, EPA assumes that the typical Class II operator has approximately 10 wells. 12 An operator with wells in multiple states is treated as separate operators, since the operator would have to submit separate reports to each state primacy agency or EPA regional office.

In general, all operators located in DI programs and operators of commercial II D wells in primacy states are required to submit annual injectate analyses. EPA estimates that approximately 10 percent of Class II operators submit annual injectate analyses each year. EPA assumes that operators submit samples for approximately 20 percent of their wells. Each operator takes 2 hours ( 1 hour per well) per year to sample and analyze their injectate. This includes the time for operators to analyze their injectate or, in some cases, send it to a commercial laboratory for analysis.

Most operators are required to observe injection pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume weekly for II D wells and monthly for II R wells. EPA anticipates that operators, especially operators of II R wells, perform periodic observations of pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume as a customary business practice. Thus, the incremental time to perform these observations is about 0.83 hours per operator ( 0.08 hours, or 5 minutes, per well) per month. This represents the time to record the data on a field report. Information Collection Request 43 EPA assumes that 20 percent of operators will perform MITs on their wells each year. Each operator will spend 17.0 hours ( 1.7 hours per well) performing MITs. The unit burden assumes that contractors perform many of the tasks involved in an MIT.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Each year, Class II operators spend about 5 hours to prepare annual monitoring reports. These reports include summaries of monthly or weekly observations of flow, pressure, and cumulative volume. In addition, 20 percent of operators will spend 10 hours per operator to prepare reports on MITs performed.

From time to time, operators submit other reports or notify UIC staff of various events. These include notifications of planned changes to the injection facility, permit transfers, progress in achieving compliance milestones, and noncompliance or malfunctions which may endanger a USDW. EPA estimates that approximately 6 percent of operators submit one of these occasional reports each year. Operators will spend an average of 5 hours to prepare each report.

Operators of rule authorized wells in DI states may be required to gather and submit groundwater monitoring data, analyses of injected fluids, a description of geologic strata, and other items as requested. EPA projects that each request will take 30 hours to prepare. In addition, operators of rule authorized wells will spend one hour per operator to notify the Region prior to performing MITs.

Operators will spend about 4 hours per operator to maintain records on permitting, monitoring, and testing.

Closure EPA does not have complete data on the number of Class II wells that are plugged and abandoned annually. However, based on recent trends in the overall Class II inventory, EPA projects that approximately 6.5 percent of operators will plug and abandon all of their wells each year. Each operator will spend about 3.0 hours ( 0.3 hours per well) to notify UIC officials prior to abandoning the wells.

In addition, EPA assumes that operators in DI programs which elect to plug their wells in a manner different from the one specified in their plugging and abandonment plans will spend 4 hours to prepare revised plugging and abandonment plans. In addition, operators which plug wells in DI programs will spend 6 hours to prepare and submit plugging and abandonment reports. Other Activities DI programs may require some operators of wells with lifetime permits to submit revised financial responsibility demonstrations. EPA estimates that 10 percent of operators in DI programs will each take 2 hours to prepare and submit revised financial data.

( 6)( a)( 2)( B) Burden on Primacy Agencies Associated with Class II Wells Class II primacy agencies review and respond to permit applications and permit reviews/ modifications, and monitoring and testing data submitted by operators within their states. State burden associated with each activity involved in the oversight of Class II programs is presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 2.

EPA estimates that states will spend 23.5 hours per permit application reviewing Class II injection well applications. Primacy agency staff spend one hour to determine whether to reissue, modify, or revoke each permit during the five year review process. Primacy agencies spend four hours reviewing each request for a permit modification or renewal.

State primacy agencies spend from 2 to 10 hours per report reviewing monitoring and MIT data or occasional reports submitted by Class II operators ( see details in Exhibit 6 2).

6( a)( 3) Burden Associated with Class III Wells Exhibit 6 3 contains EPA's estimate of the annual paperwork burden on operators for permitting, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, and closing their facilities, and state burden for administering Class III programs. Legal, managerial, technical, and clerical staff hours are shown; Column A presents the total unit burden for each activity.

( 6)( a)( 3)( A) Class III Operators Permitting/ Start up A Class III operator will spend an average of 119 hours to prepare a new permit application form and required attachments. Reading the directions and filling out the application form account for 11 hours of the total. Exhibit 6 3 provides estimates of the operator time, in addition to customary business practice, required to prepare each component of the permit application. EPA estimates that permit applicants will spend an average of:

32 hours to prepare AoR maps and studies;

22 hours to prepare maps and cross sections of USDWs within the AoR, and of local and regional geology; Information Collection Request 45 13 Some operators will be required by the state primacy agency to submit a new permit application, but the burden has not been accounted for in this ICR.

16 hours to prepare monitoring plans;

9 hours to prepare proposed operating data, formation testing and stimulation programs, and injection procedures;

8 hours to prepare plugging and abandonment plans;

5 hours to prepare schematics of the wells; and

3.5 hours to demonstrate financial responsibility.

In addition, EPA estimates that, when requested by the Director, revised corrective action plans will take 10.0 hours each. Two applicants in DI programs will spend 1.2 hours each to gather a list of landowners adjacent to the facility.

Operators completing wells must perform a two part MIT and submit a completion form. The burden associated with preparing completion reports is difficult to determine. Operators of Class III facilities, especially uranium mining facilities, typically develop their projects in multiple phases under the same area permit. EPA estimates that at least 21 Class III wells will be constructed at salt solution and brine mining facilities each year and an unknown number of wells will be constructed at uranium facilities. In addition, EPA estimates that Directors will require operators to perform and submit logs and tests during construction for three of the wells.

Permit Renewals, Reviews, and Modifications EPA estimates that 20 percent of operators each year will have a formal or informal review of their permits. Each operator will take 4 hours to respond to any issues raised during the review. 13 In addition, Class III operators will take an average of 28 hours to prepare requests for permit modifications.

Monitoring/ Testing EPA anticipates that operators of salt solution mining facilities will submit annual analyses of their injectate. On average, each operator will take 8 hours per year to sample and analyze their injectate in house.

Operators of Class III facilities will monitor injection pressure, flow rate, or volume of injected fluids semi monthly, or meter injected and produced fluid volumes continuously. EPA expects that operators perform this activity periodically as a customary business practice to ensure efficient operation of their facilities, and that the incremental collection burden is approximately 14 Some operators may be allowed to submit cementing records in lieu of performing temperature or noise logs. 4.2 hours per operator over a two week period. This represents the time needed to fill out field reports.

EPA estimates that operators of approximately 9 salt solution mining facilities will perform two part MITs on all of their wells each year. 14 The burden is estimated to be 108 hours per operator.

All uranium operators monitor water quality at selected monitoring wells completed in the injection zone and overlying freshwater aquifers. Approximately 3 active facilities monitor semimonthly approximately 7 facilities which are performing aquifer restoration monitor monthly. EPA estimates that the typical uranium facility has about 110 monitoring wells. As with pressure, flow, and volume monitoring, operators will perform about two thirds of this monitoring as a customary business practice to identify potential excursions from the injection zone. EPA assumes that UIC requirements increase the monitoring burden to these operators by about 30.5 hours per monitoring period.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Operators of Class III facilities will incur a burden of 30 hours per facility per quarter for quarterly reporting on monitoring and any MITs performed. Finally, about 10 percent of operators will spend 6 hours per year on occasional reporting activities. EPA estimates that each Class III operator spends approximately 3.4 hours on recordkeeping annually.

Closure EPA estimates that Class III operators which close their projects will take 2 hours to prepare written notifications to the Director.

( 6)( a)( 3)( B) Burden on Primacy Agencies Associated with Class III Wells For the Class III Program, primacy agency staff review and respond to permit applications, permit reviews/ modifications, and monitoring and testing data submitted by operators. State burden associated with each activity involved in the oversight of Class III programs is presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 3.

Depending on whether the permit is issued or denied, EPA estimates that states will spend between 20 and 85 hours reviewing each application for a permit to inject waste into a Class III well. Primacy agency staff spend 4 hours determining whether to reissue, modify, or revoke each permit during the five year review process, and 20 hours reviewing each request for a permit modification or re issuance. Class III primacy agencies spend from 4 to 24 hours per report Information Collection Request 47 reviewing monitoring and MIT data or occasional reports submitted by operators ( see details in Exhibit 6 3).

6( a)( 4) Burden Associated with Class IV and Endangering Class V Wells Paperwork burden on operators of Class IV/ Endangering Class V wells and on states for administering Class IV/ Endangering Class V programs is presented Exhibit 6 4. Legal, managerial, technical, and clerical staff hours are shown; Column A presents the total unit burden for each activity.

( 6)( a)( 4)( A) Class IV and Endangering Class V 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 states or DI programs. EPA estimates that the burden associated with this one time requirement will be 10 hours per well ( See Exhibit 6 4). Because these wells are banned, there are no permitting or monitoring requirements.

( 6)( a)( 4)( B) Burden on Primacy Agencies Associated with Class IV and Endangering Class V Wells State burden associated with Class IV and Endangering Class V wells involves review by primacy agency staff of closure plans submitted by operators. EPA estimates the state burden to be one hour per review.

6( a)( 5) Burden Associated with Class V Wells EPA's estimate of the annual paperwork burden on operators and states associated with Class V wells is presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 5.

( 6)( a)( 5)( A) Class V Operators Activities for Class V well operators include submitting inventory information and compliance with the Class V Rule by owners of motor vehicle waste disposal wells and largecapacity cesspools.

Inventory Activities Recent efforts by the Regions and state primacy agencies to address the potential threats to USDWs posed by Class V wells will likely increase compliance with the inventory requirement. Each Class V well operator will take one hour to prepare and submit inventory information to the appropriate Regional or state primacy agency. Activities Required Under the Class V Rule Under the Class V Rule, facilities that wish to continue operating motor vehicle waste disposal wells must seek waivers from the ban on existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells and apply for permits. As a condition of the permit, facilities must submit all monitoring reports to the UIC Director. Motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large capacity cesspools that close are required to submit pre closure notifications. Note that the clearance period for the Class V ICR ( EPA ICR no. 1874.02, August 19, 1999) expires on November 30, 2002, two months into Year 2 of this information collection. This ICR includes the Class V burden estimated to be incurred between December 2002 and September 30, 2004.

Operators of Large Capacity Cesspools Operators of facilities with large capacity cesspools will need to become familiar with the Class V requirements and prepare and submit a pre closure notification to their primacy agency. EPA assumes that each facility will require a total of 4.5 hours to complete these activities.

Operators of Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells Owners and operators of facilities with motor vehicle waste disposal wells must notify the UIC Program Director at least 30 days prior to well closure. Primacy States may develop their own pre closure notification requirements or use the Class V Well Pre Closure Notification Form, EPA Form 7520.

All owner/ operators of facilities with motor vehicle waste disposal wells must determine if their wells are located in either a ground water protection area or other sensitive ground water area. If a well is located within one of these areas, the owner/ operator will either close the well ( see preceding paragraph) or seek a waiver and apply for a permit. The specific information required in a permit application will be defined by the appropriate Primacy States or EPA regions. For purposes of this analysis, EPA has assumed that the permit requirements will be similar to those required in existing UIC permit applications ( 40 CFR 144.31) including: a description of activities requiring a permit, inventory information, topographic maps, and a brief description of the business. Owner/ operators will be required to sample injectate and sludge and submit these results with their permit applications. The unit burdens associated with these activities are presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 5.

( 6)( a)( 5)( B) Burden on Primacy Agencies Associated with Class V Wells State primacy agencies' burden associated with Class V wells includes reviewing inventory information, processing permit applications, and reviewing and responding to monitoring data submitted by operators within their states. State burden associated with oversight of Class V programs is presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 5.

EPA estimates that states will spend 0.5 hours per Class V facility reviewing inventory information. EPA estimates that states will review applications submitted by operators of Information Collection Request 49 facilities with motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large capacity cesspools. State primacy agencies will also review monitoring reports submitted by operators ( details are presented in Exhibit 6 5).

6( a)( 6) State Respondent Burden State burden associated with program oversight and compiling and reporting data using the 7520 forms is presented in Column A of Exhibit 6 6. The 7520 forms are presented in Appendix B of this ICR. The burden on states associated with completing the 7520 forms ranges from 2 to 280 hours per form. The largest unit burden will be for compiling data on nearly 40,000 newly permitted or inventoried facilities on the Inventory of Injection Wells form ( 7520 16). Most of these are new facilities added to the Class V inventory each year.

EPA estimates that the annual recordkeeping burden on state primacy agencies associated with the 7520 forms and the inventory form will be 40 hours per agency. EPA estimates that maintenance of inventory data will account for the bulk of the recordkeeping burden.

EPA estimates that, in each primacy program, one half of an FTE is devoted to implementing their state Class V program. Implementation activities states may perform include updating state regulations as needed to reflect new federal rules or providing guidance, training, or other information to well operators.

6( b) Respondent Cost For injection well operators, the unit cost for each activity consists of the cost of operator labor plus non labor costs. For state primacy programs, the unit cost consists of state staff labor only. Labor costs and non labor costs to operators for each activity are presented in Columns B and C, respectively, of Exhibits 6 1 through 6 5. Labor costs to states for each activity are presented in Column B of Exhibits 6 1 through 6 6. 15 Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, 1999, for SIC codes 28 ( chemicals and allied products), 13 ( oil and gas extraction), and 148 ( nonmetallic minerals services); increased by 60 percent to account for overhead costs.

16 From Class V ICR.

17 Based on information in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's ( OPPE's) December 1996 ICR Handbook. 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 $ 88 for legal staff, $ 66 for managerial staff, $ 32 for technical staff, and $ 22 for clerical staff. 15 For Classes IV and V, hourly salary and overhead rates are estimated to be slightly less: $ 32 for managerial staff, $ 26 for technical staff, and $ 18 for clerical staff ( no legal staff labor is assumed for these operators). 16 Contractor time was estimated to be $ 48 to $ 59 per hour, depending on the activity.

For this ICR, EPA assumed that the average hourly labor rate for a state employee is $ 33.14. This estimate is based on a federal GS 9, Step 10 salary on the 2001 federal pay scale, increased by 60 percent17 to account for overhead costs.

EPA estimated non labor costs from data provided by staff in EPA Regions and state primacy agencies, and from operators and other sources. There are no capital/ start up costs attributable to this information collection   large capital expenditures associated with underground injection ( e. g., construction costs and monitoring equipment) are customary business practice. All non labor costs of this collection are operating and maintenance costs, such as the cost of contractor services or laboratory fees associated with injectate or ground water monitoring.

Class I. The estimated total annual paperwork cost for all Class I operators is $ 22,589,495. EPA estimates that operators of Class I hazardous facilities will spend $ 12,864,468 per year on this collection. Labor comprises $ 1,077,014 of the total, and non labor costs account for $ 11,787,453. Operators of nonhazardous facilities will spend $ 9,725,028 per year   $ 2,204,887 for operator labor and $ 7,520,141 for non labor costs. The annual cost to states of administering Class I programs is $ 237,946; of this, $ 102,086 is associated with reporting by operators of Class I hazardous facilities and $ 135,860 is associated with Class I nonhazardous facility reports. See Columns B and C of Exhibits 6 1A and 6 1B for detailed estimates of the unit costs for each collection activity.

Class II. The annual cost to operators for this collection is $ 28,647,150. Operator labor accounts for $ 17,690,360 of the total and non labor costs account for $ 10,956,791. The cost to states of administering Class II programs is $ 6,443,531 annually. Columns B and C of Exhibit 6 2 contain detailed estimates of the unit costs for each collection activity. Information Collection Request 51

Class III. The annual cost to Class III operators for this collection is $ 2,371,562. Operator labor accounts for $ 1,884,303 of the total and non labor costs account for $ 487,260. The annual cost to states of administering Class III programs is $ 205,964. Columns B and C of Exhibit 6 3 for detailed estimates of the unit costs for each collection activity.

Class IV/ Endangering Class V. The total annual cost of this collection will be $ 88,800, all of which will be labor costs associated with closure. The cost to states of administering Class IV/ Endangering Class V programs is $ 947 per year. See Columns B and C of Exhibit 6 4 for Class IV/ Endangering Class V unit costs.

Class V. The total annual information collection cost for Class V operators will be $ 2,418,932   $ 1,353,840 of this cost represents operator labor and the remaining $ 1,065,092 is non labor costs. The annual cost to states of administering Class V programs is $ 1,301,609. Detailed cost estimates for each activity are presented in Columns B and C of Exhibit 6 5.

States as Respondents. EPA estimates that the total costs to states as respondents associated with this information collection will be $ 2,598,568 per year. All of this cost will be for labor. Columns B and C of Exhibit 6 6 present detailed cost estimates for each activity.

6( c) Agency Burden and Cost The federal burden associated with use of UIC Program data is similar to the state burden described in Section 6( a) above. EPA implements the UIC program for all well classes in 10 states and has oversight responsibility in six states. The paperwork requirements are the same as those for the state primacy programs. In addition, EPA reviews all no migration petitions submitted by Class I hazardous facility operators in both primacy and DI states. The total annual burden for federal DI programs as users of data is 33,736 hours. The breakdown of DI burden by well class is as follows: 6,126 hours for Class I; 17,854 hours for Class II; 381 hours for Class III; 340 hours for Class IV/ Endangering Class V; and 9,034 hours for Class V. The total federal burden associated with review of operator submissions is presented in Column C of Exhibits 6 7 through 6 11.

EPA assumes the average hourly labor rate for salary and overhead and benefits for Agency staff to be $ 33.14. This estimate is based on a federal GS 9, Step 10 salary on the 2001 federal pay scale, increased by 60 percent to account for overhead costs.

The annual federal cost associated with this collection is $ 1,118,002. The breakdown of Agency cost associated with each well class is as follows: $ 203,024 for Class I; $ 591,677 for Class II; $ 12,633 for Class III; $ 11,281 for Class IV/ Endangering Class V; and $ 299,387 for Class V wells. Column D of Exhibits 6 7 through 6 11 present detailed estimates of these costs. 6( d) Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs In this section, EPA describes the number of respondents subject to each paperwork activity outlined in Section 6( a). The number of responses for each activity is shown in Column D of Exhibits 6 1 through 6 6. This number, known as the respondent universe, is based on EPA's assumptions on the number of permittees subject to each paperwork requirement, e. g., the number of permit applications or well closures expected, or the percent of permittees subject to monitoring or reporting requirements and the frequency with which they must comply with those requirements. The frequency at which each activity is performed is presented in the burden and cost tables along with EPA's description of each activity. Specific assumptions about the respondent universe for each well class are described below.

Class I EPA inventory data indicate that there are 486 Class I wells, of which 122 inject hazardous waste, and 364 inject nonhazardous waste.

Class I Hazardous According to EPA's inventory, there are 64 Class I hazardous waste facilities, with a total of 122 wells, an average of 1.9 wells per facility. EPA estimates that 8 new Class I hazardous waste facility operating permits will be issued each year ( 6 for one new well at an existing facility, and the remaining two for newly constructed facilities). EPA further anticipates that 12 Class I hazardous facility operators will renew their permits each year; 5 will modify their permits each year; and 6 operators will modify their petitions each year. All operators of Class I hazardous waste facilities must monitor and report at various frequencies ( see Exhibit 6 1A). EPA expects that one Class I hazardous well will close during each year of the life of this ICR.

Class I Nonhazardous EPA estimates that there are 192 Class I nonhazardous waste facilities, with a total of 364 wells, an average of 1.9 wells per facility. The Agency estimates that 14 new nonhazardous waste injection permits will be issued each year, of which 10 will be for one new well at an existing facility. EPA anticipates that 20 Class I nonhazardous facility operators will renew their permits each year, and 9 Class I nonhazardous facility operators will modify their permits each year. Every operator of a Class I nonhazardous waste facility must monitor and report at various frequencies, as shown in Exhibit 6 1B. Based on inventory data, EPA anticipates that one Class I nonhazardous well in a primacy state will close each year. Information Collection Request 53 18 This estimate is based on operator data from Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

19 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah perform some or all of the tasks involved in an AoR study. Class II EPA assumes that the typical Class II operator has approximately 10 wells, and that there are approximately 14,688 Class II owners/ operators. 18 EPA anticipates that EPA regional offices and primacy states will receive approximately 4,900 applications for Class II wells each year during the life of this ICR. Details of the numbers of Class II operators subject to each paperwork requirement are presented in Column D of Exhibit 6 2.

Based on previous studies of state AoR practices and requirements, EPA projects that state primacy agencies and EPA Regions will determine that a complete AoR is not necessary for approximately 2,887 of the 4,900 permit applicants. EPA projects that approximately 924 applicants will submit an AoR map and an AoR study as part of the permit application. Another 1,089 applicants will submit an AoR map and a listing of the wells in the AoR, and the state primacy agency will perform most or all of the tasks involved in the AoR study. 19 EPA estimates that 490 applicants will submit corrective action plans to address specific problems identified by the AoR study. EPA regional or state primacy staff will require 98 operators ( 20 percent) to revise their corrective action plans.

Prior to obtaining approval to begin injection, operators must submit completion reports for each of the 6,537 new Class II wells each year. Most operators will submit logs for offset wells in their projects. EPA assumes that operators will perform additional logs and tests for 726 new II D wells and 255 new II R wells.

EPA estimates that approximately 73,439 class II wells ( 50 percent) are permitted, and that the permits for 14,688 wells are reviewed each year. In addition, EPA expects that 4,010 operators will submit requests for permit modifications.

In general, all operators located in DI programs and operators of commercial II D wells in primacy states are required to submit annual injectate analyses. EPA estimates that approximately 1,469 Class II operators will submit annual injectate analyses each year.

From time to time, operators submit reports or notify UIC staff of various events, such as planned changes to the injection facility, permit transfers, progress in achieving compliance milestones, and noncompliance or malfunctions which may endanger a USDW. EPA estimates that approximately 881 operators ( 6 percent) submit one of these occasional reports each year.

EPA projects that approximately 5 operators of rule authorized wells in DI states may be required to gather and submit groundwater monitoring data, analyses of injected fluids, a description of geologic strata, and other items as requested.

EPA projects that approximately 1,044 operators will plug and abandon all of their wells each year. In addition, EPA assumes that approximately 1 operator in a DI program will elect to plug its wells in a manner different from the one specified in its plugging and abandonment plan.

Class III EPA estimates that there are approximately 164 facilities with Class III wells ( 10 uranium mining, 45 salt solution mining, and 109 brine mining/ other). A typical uranium facility has approximately 1,581 Class III wells, a typical salt mining facility has 11 wells, and a typical brine mining/ other facility has 3 wells.

EPA regional offices and state primacy agencies expect to receive 32 permit applications from Class III operators each year. EPA estimates that approximately 2 Class III operators will close their projects annually.