## Information Collection Request for the Federal Requirements under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geological Sequestration WellsOffice of Water (4606M)

EPA 816-R10-012

November 2010 http://water.epa.gov/drink/

### T ABLE OF 

### C ONTENTS

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 COLLECTION ........................................................................... 4 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ............................................................................. 4 2(b) Use/Users of the Data ................................................................................................ 4

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OT HER COLLECTION

CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................. 6 3(a) Non-duplication ......................................................................................................... 6 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ....................................... 6 3(c) Consultations ............................................................................................................. 7 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection .......................................................................... 8 3(e) General Guidelines .................................................................................................... 8 3(f) Confidentiality ........................................................................................................... 8 3(g) Sensitive Questions ................................................................................................... 8

4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED ..................................................... 9 4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes ...................................................................................... 9 4(b) Information Requested .............................................................................................. 9 4(b)(i) Data Items ........................................................................................................... 9 4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities ....................................................................................... 13

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENC Y ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .......................................... 17 5(a) Agency Activities .................................................................................................... 17 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ............................................................. 17 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility ........................................................................................... 18 5(d) Collection Schedule ................................................................................................. 18

6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION ................................................ 20 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ............................................................................... 21 6(a)(i) Burden to Owners and Operators of CO2 GS Wells ........................................ 21 6(a)(ii) Burden to Permitting Authorities ......................................................................... 23 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs .................................................................................. 24 6(b)(i) Costs to Operators ................................................................................................ 24 6(b)(ii) Costs to Permitting Authorities ........................................................................... 25 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs ..................................................................... 25 6(d) Respondent Universe ............................................................................................... 26 6(e) Bottom Line Annual Burden and Costs .................................................................. 27 6(e)(i) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line .............................................................. 28 6(f) Burden Statement .................................................................................................... 29

Page iAPPENDICES

Appendix A: GS Rule Net Change Burden and Costs Spreadsheets Appendix B: GS Rule Selected Altern ative Burden and Costs Spreadsheets Appendix C: GS Rule Baseline Burden and Costs Spreadsheets

Page iiLIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 6.1a: Average Annual Net Change Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013) ........................................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 6.1b: Average Annual Net Change Owner and Operator Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013) .................................................................................. 22 Exhibit 6.1c: Average Annual Net Change Pe rmitting Authorities Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013)............................................................................ 23 Exhibit 6.1d: Average Annual Net Change Agency Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013) ................................................................................................ 26 Exhibit 6.2: Bottom Line Average Annua l Net Change Burden and Costs for the

3-Year ICR Period ................................................................................................ 28

Page iiiPage iv ACRONYMS

AoR Area of Review

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide

CBI Confidential Business Information DOE United States Department of Energy EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ER Enhanced Recovery FILS Federal Information Locator System

FOIA Freedom of Information Act GS Geologic Sequestration

GWPC Ground Water Protection Council ICR Information Collection Request IOGCC Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission MIT Mechanical Integrity Testing MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NIWG National Indian Work Group NODA Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NTC National Tribal Caucus O&M Operations and Maintenance

OGWDW Office of Ground Wa ter and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget PISC Post-Injection Site Care PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RICS EPA Regional Indian Coordinators SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act T&C Technology and Cost

TDS Total Dissolved Solids UIC Underground Injection Control USDWs Underground Sources of Drinking WaterGS Rule ICR November 2010



### 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title: Information Collection Request for the Federal Requirements under the Underground Injection C ontrol (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (GS Rule)

OMB Control Number: 2040-0278 EPA Tracking Number: 2309.01

1(b) Short Characterization

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA or the Agency) is promulgating federal requirements under the UIC pr ogram for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) geologic sequestration (GS) wells. GS is the proc ess of injecting CO 2 captured from an emission source (e.g., a power plant or industrial facility) into deep subsurface rock fo rmations for long-term storage. It is part of a portfolio of options th at could help reduce CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change. EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Dr inking Water (OGWDW) is promulgating a regulation that will requ ire the collection of information to en sure a consistent approach to the permitting application and monitoring requirements for all CO 2 GS wells.

The GS Rule establishes a new class of inject ion well – Class VI – fo r GS projects based on the unique challenges of preventing potenti al endangerment to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from these operations. Th e GS Rule mandates technical criteria for geological site characterization; determination of the area of review (AoR) and corrective action; well construction and operation; mechanical in tegrity testing (MIT) a nd monitoring; and well plugging, post-injection site care (P ISC) and site closure. The re gulation is based on the existing Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements found at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148, with new requirements added to address the unique nature of CO 2 injection for GS. The purpose of the rulemaking is to assure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs. The rule will also help ensure consistent approaches to permitting GS operations across the United States.

Under the GS Rule, operators of GS wells must submit UIC permit applications, which contain extensive geologic data a nd other information, to demonstrat e that a site is suitable for GS. Operators must also model the extent of th e AoR, report on the status of corrective action on wells in the AoR, and report on pre-operational logging and testing before obtaining an injection permit. Throughout the injection project, operators will monitor the well and the site and submit data to the permitting authority on a semi-annual ba sis. At least every 5 years they will reevaluate the AoR and update the AoR and Correc tive Action Plan, as well as other plans as needed. Permit holders will be required to plug thei r injection well(s) and monitor the site for a default period of 50 years after injection has ende d. The Director has the di scretion to shorten or lengthen the timeframe based on data submitted as part of the permit application, or collected during PISC. Following PISC, operators would be required to demonstrate non-endangerment to

Page 1GS Rule ICR November 2010

USDWs. Once closure of the site is authorized, op erators must close the site and submit a closure
report.

States 1 applying for primacy to oversee Class VI wells will need to submit a primacy application as described in 40 CFR 145. Permitting au thorities, which include States that obtain primacy enforcement responsibility (primacy) to implement the Class VI program, as well as EPA Regional offices that directly implement the Class VI program, will collect and review permit applications and geological data from operators; receive and review testing and monitoring data and updates to AoR and Correct ive Action Plans throughout the injection phase; review plugging reports and post- injection monitoring reports; a nd eventually authorize site

closure.

In the case where owners or operators seek a waiver from the requirement that Class VI wells inject below the lowermost USDW, owners or operators must subm it a supplemental report demonstrating that such injection can be pe rformed in a way that protects USDWs. EPA Regional offices (and Headquarters) will approve a pplications for waivers from the requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW, as we ll as review and approve Class VI primacy applications.

EPA assumes that the GS Rule will be prom ulgated in 2011; this information collection request (ICR) covers the 3-year period from 201 1 through 2013. EPA assumes that 32 States will apply for primacy during that time. It is estimated that approximately two 2 owners or operators of Class VI wells will apply for permits duri ng the three-year ICR cl earance period. Of these operators approximately one is assumed to be lo cated in States with pr imacy; approximately one is assumed to be in a State where EPA directly implements the UIC Program. This assumption is

based on the distribution of States that have primacy for other well classes, as described in Chapter 5 of EPA’s Cost Analysis for the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells 3

.

This ICR does not estimate the total bur den associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the GS Rule. Instea d, it calculates the incremental or net change in burden associated with any new requireme nts of the rule, compared to existing UIC requirements for Class I non-hazard ous wells (the “baseline”).

EPA estimates that the owners and operators of GS wells will incur an average annual net change of 1,549 hours of respondent burden and $0.2 million in labor costs annually responding to this information request. Annual capital a nd operations and mainte nance (O&M) costs for operators are estimated to increase by $5.8 million and $5.5 million, respectively. The average annual net change cost for operators is $11.5 million. In order to perform the activities associated with this ICR, EPA estimates that permitting author ities will incur an aver age annual net change of 11,241 hours of burden and $0.6 million in total co sts (all labor). Note, in this ICR, burden

1 Reference to “States” includes Tribes and Territories.

2 A detailed description of the GS Rule project deployment schedule is presented in Chapter 3 of the Cost Analysis (see Exhibit 3.1).

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis , EPA

816-R-10-008.

Page 2GS Rule ICR November 2010

incurred by EPA Regions directly implementing the Class VI rule is combined with burden incurred by States to provide an overall burd en for permitting authorities. Burden incurred by EPA Regions overseeing States’ primacy program s and approving waiver applications is presented separately as EPA burden. The estimated EPA burden will increase by 5,123 hours and $0.3 million in total costs (all labor) annually. A summary of burden and cost associated with

this ICR can be found in Exhibit 6.1a.

The net change burden and costs associated wi th complying with the rule beyond the first 3 years after rule promulgation are estimated in A ppendix A. Note that these calculations are for informational purposes only and are not included in the burden for this ICR clearance period. Appendix B estimates the total burden and costs for the selected alternative; Appendix C

estimates the total burden and costs for the baselin e. These appendices are used to calculate the net change burden and costs presented in Appendix A.

This ICR was prepared in accordance with the November 2005 version of EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Un der the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or “ICR Handbook”) prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbo ok provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and the Office of Management and B udget’s (OMB) implementing guidelines.

Page 3GS Rule ICR November 2010

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF COLLECTION

The following sections describe the need fo r this information collection and the legal authority under which this information will be collected.

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

EPA is promulgating the GS Rule to pr ovide federal requirements for owners and operators of CO 2 GS wells to protect USDWs from pot ential contamination. EPA has authority to regulate the injecti on of fluids, including CO 2 , into the subsurface under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as amended in 1986 and in 1996. The UIC Program, to which this regulation adds a sixth class of injection well, was promulgated under Part C of the SDWA. The

information collected under the GS Rule is required by EPA to carry out its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities pertaining to UIC under the SDWA.

The GS Rule is based on the existing UI C regulatory framework found at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148, with additional new requirement s to address the unique nature of CO 2 injection for GS. The requirements are codified in a new Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 146. The GS Rule is also meant to provide regulatory certainty and permitting consistency for CO 2 GS projects.

The chief goal of any federally approved UIC Program is the protection of USDWs. This includes not only those aquifers th at are presently being used for drinking water, but also those that can reasonably be expected to be used in the future. EPA has established through its UIC Program regulations that underground aquifers with less than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) and containing a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system are

USDWs.

Section 1421 of the SDWA requires EPA to propose and promulgate regulations specifying minimum requirements for effective State programs to prevent underground injection that endangers drinking water sources. Section 1421(b) (3)(A) of the Act also provides that EPA’s UIC regulations shall “p ermit or provide for consideration of varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different States and in different ar eas within a State.” EPA promulgated administrative and permitting regulations, now codified in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146, on May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33290), and techni cal requirements, in 40 CFR part 146, on June 24, 1980 (45 FR 42472). The regulations were subsequently amended on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43156), February 3, 1982 (47 FR 4992), January 21, 1983 (48 FR 2938), April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146), May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20138), July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118), December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63890), June 10, 1994 (59 FR 29958), December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64339), June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926), December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68546), May 15, 2000 (65 FR 30886), June 7, 2002 (67 FR 39583), and November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70513).

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

Owners and operators of CO 2 injection wells will use information collected in preparing their permit applications and a ssociated plans and reports (including the Testing and Monitoring Plan, AoR and Corrective Action Plan, Injecti on Well Plugging Plan, PISC and Site Closure

Page 4GS Rule ICR November 2010

Plan, and Emergency and Remedial Response Pl an) to construct, operate, and close their injection well sites. They will use the data they collect to determine whether they are complying with permit conditions and to determine whether corrective action or operational adjustments are needed. They will also use ambient mon itoring data to detect whether the CO 2 plume has migrated outside of the injection zone.

Permitting authorities will use the operator-submitted permit applications and associated plans and reports (including the Testing and M onitoring Plan, AoR and Corrective Action Plan, Injection Well Plugging Plan, PISC and Site Closure Plan, and Emergency and Remedial Response Plan) to determine whether a proposed site is suitable for CO 2 GS, whether the proposed well meets the criteria specified in the GS Rule, and whether a permit should be granted. They will use demonstrations of financia l responsibility to ensu re that the owner or operator is able to pay for operation and any remediation th at may be required. Permitting authorities will review testing a nd monitoring reports as well as periodic AoR re-evaluations and plans to make sure that Class VI injection we lls are in compliance and that no fluid movement into or endangerment to USDWs has occurred. Permitting authorities will use reports submitted during PISC to assure that the CO 2 plume has not moved beyond the confining zone and is not endangering USDWs, and before si te closure is authorized the CO 2 plume has stabilized and poses no threat to USDWs.

EPA will review the State applications for Class VI primacy and determine if the proposed State UIC Class VI program can be implemented in a manner that protects USDWs before approving the program.

Page 5GS Rule ICR November 2010

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication

EPA has searched the Federal Information Locato r System (FILS) in an effort to ensure nonduplication of the data collection efforts. To the best of the Agency’s knowledge, data currently required by the GS Rule are not available from any other source. 4

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

As part of the Federal Register notice on th e proposed GS Rule, EPA solicited comments

on this information collection and the estimates in this ICR. EPA solicited comments on specific aspects of the proposed informati on collection, as described below:

1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether th e information will have practical utility; 2) Whether the Agency’s burden estimate is accurate including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; 3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 4) How to minimize the burden on respondents, including use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technologica l collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

EPA did not receive comments that specifica lly referred to the ICR prepared for the proposed rule; however, it received several comments (such as the need to increase unit costs) on the associated Cost Analysis 5 , as well as the Technology and Cost (T&C) Document 6 (which contains many of the unit costs used to estimate costs for the Cost Analysis and the ICR). For the final rule, EPA revised many of the unit costs to incorporate those comments; these changes have been incorporated into this ICR. For example, EPA increased the cost associated with seismic surveys conducted as part of site characterizat ion by 30 percent, the labor burden for preparing semi-annual reports by 25 percent, and the load ed labor rates for ge ologists and engineers preparing permit applications by approximately 75 percent.

EPA’s responses to comments received on the proposed rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov , docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390.

4 Simultaneous development of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of CO 2 Rule (Subpart RR) and the GS Rule was coordinated by EPA, with close consideration for potential overlaps in reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Based on the coordinated rule making efforts, EPA is minimizing the potential overlap in reporting and recordkeeping requirements to owners and operators of wells that may be required to report and record information under both rules.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis , EPA

816-R-10-008.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis , EPA

816-R-10-008.

Page 6GS Rule ICR November 2010

In compliance with the PRA (44 USC 3501 et seq .), EPA submitted the ICR for the GS Rule to OMB for review and approval prior to proposal. EPA did not receive any comments

from OMB on the ICR at that time.

3(c) Consultations

As described in the previous section, the bur den and costs estimated in this ICR are based on the T&C document developed for the GS Rule, which was informed by States, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and public comme nt. Prior to proposal, the costs in the T&C document were reviewed by members of the EP A regulatory workgroup, which included four

States and the DOE that deve loped the regulation. For the fi nal rule, EPA revised the T&C document to reflect public comments, as descri bed in the previous section. In addition, throughout the rulemaking process, the Agen cy conducted public workshops and public hearings, held consultations with specific groups , and attended meetings to ensure transparency

and facilitate communication wi th the public and stakeholde r groups interested in GS technologies, deployment, and associat ed technical and regulatory issues.

As part of its outreach, EPA conducted public hearings with partic ipants from industry, environmental groups, utilities, academia, States, and the general public. Two separate public hearings were held on the proposed GS Rule in September and October 2008, respectively. Additionally, a public hearing to solicit public comment on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) was held in Sept ember 2009. Two workshops were also held in December 2007 and February 2008. Summaries are available on EPA’s web site, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ uic/wells_sequestration.html.

EPA also coordinated with the Ground Wa ter Protection Council (GWPC), a State association that focuses on ensuring safe applic ation of injection well technology and protecting ground water resources, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), a chartered State association repr esenting oil and gas producing St ates. Members of IOGCC have specific expertise regulating the injection of CO 2 for the enhanced recovery of oil and gas in depleted oil and gas reservoi rs. EPA staff attended national meetings and calls of these organizations, as well as those held by tec hnical and trade organiza tions, NGOs, States, and Tribal organizations, to discu ss the rulemaking process and GS -specific technical issues.

In April of 2008, prior to pub lication of the proposed rule and during development of the final rule, the Agency consulted with all Fe derally-recognized Indian Tribes and invited participation in a dedicated GS consultation effort. The EPA Regional Indian Coordinators (RICS), National Indian Workgroup (NIWG), Nati onal Tribal Caucus (NTC) and the National

Tribal Water Council contacts were also invited to pa rticipate in the cons ultation. EPA provided additional rulemaking updates afte r publication of the proposal with the above-mentioned groups

as well as the National Water Pr ogram State and Tribal Climate Change Council. The Fort Peck

Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes and the Navajo Nation received UI C Program primacy for the Class II program (under section 1425 of the SDWA) during the proposal period for this rule. Therefore, the Agency initiated an additional cons ultation effort with these Tribal co-regulators post-proposal. Documentation of these meeti ngs is available in the Rulemaking docket.

Page 7GS Rule ICR November 2010

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The testing and monitoring frequencies for so me requirements under the GS Rule will be established as permit conditions; others, including MITs, are es tablished by regulation. The GS Rule will require other parameters to be mon itored continuously. These monitoring frequencies are based on existing UIC Program regulations fo r other well classes. EPA believes that the monitoring and reporting frequencie s established in the GS Rule are the minimum necessary to ensure that any leakag e would be detected.

3(e) General Guidelines

The GS Rule complies with the guidelines (5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)) implemented under the PRA, with some exceptions. One exception is th at it requires a response to a request for information in less than 30 days, in opposition to the PRA guidelines. Specifically, the GS Rule requires notification of the permitting authority within 24 hours if a well loses mechanical integrity or if injection may cause endangerment to a USDW. This is consistent with notification requirements for permitted wells under existing UIC regulations. The other exceptions are that many recordkeeping requirements are longer than PRA guidelines. This longer period reflects current UIC Program practices consistent with th e time frame associated with the operational and post-operational requirements for Class VI injection wells.

3(f) Confidentiality

Owners and operators of injection wells may claim confidentiality on certain information provided in the proposed Class VI injection well permit appli cation, as provided in existing regulations in 40 CFR 144.5, Confidentiality of Information . If confidentialit y is requested, the

confidential information is treated in accordance with th e provisions of 40 CFR 2, Public Information . Any confidentiality claim must be made at the time of Class VI injection well permit application submission in the manner pr escribed by the appli cation form or its

instructions. In the case of other submissions , respondents may claim confidentiality by stamping

the words “confidential business information” (CBI) 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;

• Information regarding the existence, absen ce, or level of contaminants in drinking

water.

Information collected under this ICR is intende d for the Agency’s and/or State’s internal use and there are no plans to routinely release or publish any of the data. However, if no claim of confidentiality is made at the time of submission, the informati on can be made available to the public without further notice. Also, all information th at is not deemed to be confidential will be released to the public if requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

Page 8GS Rule ICR November 2010

The data collection does not ask any sensitiv e questions concerning sexual behaviors or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters.

4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

The following sections provide information on the respondents and the information they are requested to provide.

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Respondents to the GS Rule include those who desire to inject CO 2 in the subsurface for the purpose of long-term storage. They potentially include the owners and ope rators of coal-fired electric power plants and ethanol power plants and the oil and gas extract ion industry. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for fossil fuel electric power generation is 221112; the code for crude petroleum and natu ral gas extraction is 211111; and for petroleum refining is 324110. 7 States and EPA Regions that provide UIC Class VI Program oversight are also respondents. The NAICS code for Tribes is 921150. The code for administration of air and water resource and solid waste management programs is 924110.

4(b) Information Requested

The following sections provide details on data items requested and associated activities respondents will be required to unde rtake to provide this information. All data must be submitted in electronic format (40 CFR 146.91(e)).

4(b)(i) Data Items

Owners and Operators

EPA will require those seeking permits to own and operate CO 2 GS wells to submit the following items in order to characterize the proposed site, as described in more detail in 40 CFR 146.82(a):

• Information required in 40 CFR 144.31 (e)(1) through (6);

• A map showing the injection well (s) and the applicable AoR;

• Information on the geologic structure and hydrogeologic properties of the proposed storage site and overlying formations;

• A tabulation of all wells within the AoR which penetrate the injection or confining zone(s);

• Maps and stratigraphic cross sections indica ting the general vertical and lateral limits of all USDWs, water wells and springs within the AoR, their positions relative to the injection zone(s) and th e direction of water movement, where known; and

7 2007 NAICS Codes. http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/NAICOD07.HTM . The NAICS codes provided above is

not an exhaustive list.

Page 9GS Rule ICR November 2010

• Baseline geochemical data on subsurface formations, including all USDWs in the

area of review.

In unique situations, owners and operators ma y request a waiver to the requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW and must s ubmit, at the time of permit application, a supplemental report that includes the following (40 CFR 146.95(a)):

• A demonstration that the inje ction zone is appropriate and meets certain conditions;

• A demonstration that the confining zone is appropriate and meets certain conditions;

• A demonstration, using computational mode ling (in conjunction with AoR modeling)

that the USDWs above and below the in jection zone will not be endangered;

• A demonstration that well design and cons truction will ensure isolation of the injectate, and meet well construc tion requirements of 40 CFR 146.95(f);

• A description of how the Monitoring and Testing Plan and any other plans will be tailored to address injecti on above the lowermost USDW;

• Information on public water systems that use USDWs in the AoR; and

• Any other information required by the permitting authority.

In addition, owners and operators must s ubmit the following plans and proposals with their applications (40 CFR 146.82(a)):

• Proposed operating data;

• Proposed pre-operational formation testing program;

• Proposed stimulation program;

• Proposed procedure to outline steps nece ssary to conduct injection operation;

• Schematic or other appropriate drawings of the surface and subsurface construction details of the well;

• Injection well construction procedures that meet requirements of 146.86;

• Proposed AoR and Corrective Action Plan that meet requirements of 146.84;

• A demonstration that the applicant has me t financial responsib ility requirements under 146.85;

• Proposed Testing and Monitoring Plan required by 146.90;

• Proposed Injection Well Plugging Plan required by 146.92;

• Proposed PISC and Site Clos ure Plan required by 146.93(a);

• Proposed Emergency and Remedial Re sponse Plan required by 146.94(a); and

• A list of contacts for States, Tribes , and Territories within the AOR

Page 10GS Rule ICR November 2010

• Any other information requested by the permitting authority.

After construction of the well but before ope ration begins, owners or operators must submit the following information (40 CFR 146.82(c)):

• The AoR based on modeling, using data obtai ned during logging a nd testing of the well and the formation;

• Any updates, based on data obtained during logging and testing, to geologic and hydrogeologic data initially submitted with the permit application;

• Information on the compatibility of the CO 2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zone(s);

• Results of the forma tion testing program;

• Final injection well constr uction procedures that m eet requirements of 146.86;

• The status of corrective action on wells in the AoR;

• All available logging and testing program data on the well (collected under 40 CFR 146.87);

• A demonstration of mechanical integrity pr ior to commencing injection pursuant to 146.89;

• Any updates to the proposed AoR and Corrective Action Plan, Testing and Monitoring Plan, Injection Well Plugging Pla n, PISC and Site Closure Plan, or the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan needed to address new information collected during loggin g and testing; and

• Any other information re quested by the Director.

Once an operating permit has been issued, EP A will require semi-annual reports of the following (40 CFR 146.91(a)):

• The characteristics of injection fluids, in jection pressure, flow rate, volume, and annular pressure;

• A description of any events that required sh utdown or that resulted in an exceedance of operating parameters specified in the permit;

• Monthly and cumulative volume or mass of CO 2 injected;

• Monthly annulus fluid volume added; and

• The results of any monitoring conducted under the Monitoring and Testing Plan.

Although reporting is semi-annual, many of the monitoring requirements are more frequent; some are continuous. Some frequencies are specified in the GS Rule; others will be site-specific and will be established and docum ented in the Monitoring and Testing Plan.

Page 11GS Rule ICR November 2010

Within 30 days, owners must report results of MITs, well workovers, and any other test required by the Director (40 CFR 146.91(b)). They must also notify the director 30 days in advance of a planned well workove r, planned stimulation activities, or any other planned test of the well (40 CFR 146.91(d)).

Certain events require the owner or operator to notify the State with in 24 hours. These are associated with triggers indicating potential endangerment to USDWs and include the following (40 CFR 146.91(c)):

• Evidence that the injected CO 2 stream and associated pressure front may cause endangerment to a USDW;

• Noncompliance with a permit condition, or a problem with the injection system, that may cause fluid migration into or between USDWs;

• Any triggering of a shut-off system;

• Failure to maintain mechanical integrity; and

• Any release of gas to the atmosphere or biosphere, at sites where soil or air monitoring is required.

At least every 5 years (or when changes in si te-specific operational c onditions established up front and specified in the plans warrant re-eva luation), operators must also re-evaluate the AoR and submit an amended AoR and Corrective Action Plan as needed to the permitting authority (40 CFR 146.84). Operators must also annually update the cost information supporting their financial responsibility determinations a nd annually provide an inflation update (40 CFR 146.85). The final rule also requires owners and operators to revi se their monitoring and testing and emergency and Remedial Response Plans at least every 5 years, as needed, based on the

AoR reevaluation or other relevant data. Where no revision is needed, owners or operators must

demonstrate that this is th e case (40 CFR 146.90 ; 40 CFR 146.94).

Following the injection phase (i.e., during we ll plugging and PISC) the owner or operator must submit the following information (40 CFR 146.92; 40 CFR 146.93):

• A notification of intent to plug injection wells, along with any revisions made to the original Plugging Plan submitted with the permit application;

• A plugging report after plugging is complete;

• A revised PISC and Site Closure Plan: wher e no revision is needed, demonstrate that that is the case;

• Periodic reports of the results of post-in jection ground water quality monitoring and the position of the CO 2 plume and pressure front;

• A non-endangerment demonstration that the CO 2 plume has stabilized and there is no threat to USDWs following the PISC period;

Page 12GS Rule ICR November 2010

• Notice of intent for site closure and, if n eeded, a revised PISC and Site Closure Plan;

and

• A site closure report and copy of recording of a notation on the deed to the property regarding the fact th at injection occurred.

Permitting Authorities

Permitting authorities will be required to re view all the items submitted by owners and operators (see above).

States seeking primacy for administrating a Class VI program must receive approval for their program from EPA. States that do not currently have primacy under SDWA Section 1422 must include the following (40 CFR 145.22):

• A letter from the governor re questing program approval;

• A complete program description (as described in 40 CFR 145.23);

• An attorney general’s statemen t, as required by 40 CFR 145.24;

• A memorandum of agreement (MOA) with th e Regional administrator, as required by 40 CFR 145.31(b);

• Copies of all applicable Stat e statutes and regulations; and

• A showing of the State’s public participation activiti es, as required by 40 CFR 145.31(b).

According to the GS Rule, States may submit their Class VI primacy application electronically.

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

Owners and Operators

In general, owners and operators seeking to obtain permits for CO 2 GS wells will be involved in the following collection activities:

• Reading and understanding the GS Rule;

• Gathering new or existing geological data and other site information required as part of the permit application, in cluding maps, geological and geochemical data, and data on existing wells in the AoR;

• Developing plans and procedures that must be submitted with the permit application, including the proposed operating data, propos ed formation testing program, proposed stimulation program, proposed injection pro cedure, schematics of well construction, Testing and Monitoring Plan, proposed area of review and Corrective Action Plan,

Page 13GS Rule ICR November 2010

injection well construction procedures, proposed Inje ction Well Plugging Plan, proposed PISC and Site Closure Plan, and proposed emergency and Remedial Response Plan (40 CFR 146.82(a));

• Developing a report including the informa tion required as part of a waiver application, if applying for a waiver (40 CFR 146.82(d));

• Demonstrating financial responsibility and resources for correctiv e action, injection well plugging, post-injection si te care and closure, and emergency and remedial response; and

• Compiling the above information and preparing the permit application.

After submitting the UIC permit application but before beginning operation of a Class VI well, owners and operators must conduct testi ng and submit additional information. Activities include the following:

• Submitting all logging and testi ng data; results of formation testing; and data on compatibility of the CO 2 stream with fluids and minerals in the injection and confining zones, and well materials;

• Demonstrating mechanical integrity of the well;

• Calculating the AoR using computationa l models, based on data obtained during logging and testing; and

• Providing information on status of co rrective action on wells in the AoR.

Once operation commences, owners and opera tors must monitor the well and submit semi-annual reports. They must monitor the following:

• Chemical and physical characteristics of the CO 2 stream;

• Injection pressure, flow rate and volume , and pressure on the annulus, and annulus fluid volume (using conti nuous recording devices);

• Alarms and automatic shut-off systems; and

• Corrosion of well materials.

In addition, at least once per year operators must demonstrate external mechanical integrity and report the results of testing. Throughout the injecti on phase, operators must monitor ground water quality, track the CO 2 plume and pressure front, and perform any soil gas/ surface air monitoring or other required monitoring, as specified in their approved Testing and Monitoring Plans.

At least every 5 years, the owner or operat or must re-evaluate the AoR by rerunning the delineation models to incorporat e operational and monitoring da ta. Based on this, the operator must revise the AoR and Corrective Action Plan, if needed. This reeval uation also triggers

Page 14GS Rule ICR November 2010

revisions to monitoring and tes ting, and emergency and Remedial Response Plans every 5 years, as needed. Where no revision is needed, owners or operators must demonstrate that none is required.

At the end of an injection pr oject, the operator must submit a notice of intent to plug the injection well and a notice of intent for site closure. During the PISC phase, operators will monitor ground water quality, track the position of the CO 2 plume and pressure front as well as report to the permitting authority on the results as specified in their approved PISC Plans. Following the post-injection monitoring, operators will perform a non-endangerment

demonstration to show that there is no threat to USDWs, and that no further monitoring is necessary. At this point, if clos ure of the site is authorized, th e owner or operator must submit a site closure report and must reco rd a notation on the deed to the property regarding the fact that injection occurred on the site.

Recordkeeping activities include maintaini ng the AoR and Corrective Action Plan, the Well Plugging Plan, the Emergency and Remedial Re sponse plan, and the PISC and Site Closure Plan. Operators must also maintain and adjust co st information associated with their financial responsibility determinations.

Additionally, owners and operato rs of Class VI wells are required to keep records associated with permit application throughout th e life of the geologic se questration project and until 10 years after site closure. Owners and operators must also keep all reports required by 40 CFR 146.90(b) through 146.90(i) for 10 years. Data on the nature and composition of all injected fluids must be kept until 10 years after site cl osure, and the Director may require owners and operators to deliver these records to the Direct or at the conclusion of the required period. The Director may require owners and operators to k eep any of the above records for longer than 10 years after site clos ure (40 CFR 146.91(f)).

Permitting Authorities

Permitting authorities may serve in the role of respondents when reviewing and evaluating information and reports submitted by owners or operators. Permitting authorities are anticipated to be involved in the following activities:

• Read and understand the rule; train staff;

• Modify or develop data management syst ems to receive and evaluate information related to GS activities, as required;

• Review permit applications and prepare permits; issue notice and oversee public comment period on draft permit;

• Review waiver applications and issue public notice on proposed waiv er, if applicable;

• Review pre-operational testi ng and logging data, AoR evalua tions, and the status of corrective action;

• Review reports from operators as described in 40 CFR 146.91;

Page 15GS Rule ICR November 2010

• Review AoR re-evaluations and updates to the AoR and Corrective Action Plan, Monitoring and Testing Plan, and Emer gency and Remedial Response Plan;

• Modify permits as necessary to in corporate and reflect updated plans;

• Review notices of intent to plug wells;

• Review post-injection monitoring data and non-endangerment demonstrations and determine whether to authorize site closure;

• Review notices of intent to close GS sites and site closure reports; and

• Maintain records of the above information submitted by operators.

States are required to maintain records of Class VI inject ion well operation verification activities and each determination made, and repo rt to EPA under the UIC program in accordance with reporting requirements at 40 CFR 144.8 through the UIC Program.

States must develop and submit their pr oposed UIC Class VI program to EPA for approval of primary enforcement authority. Stat e primacy applications for UIC Programs must

include the items described in 40 CFR 145.23.

Page 16GS Rule ICR November 2010

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENC Y ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The following sections describe the Agency activities related to analyzing, maintaining, and distributing the information collected.

5(a) Agency Activities

The Agency will be responsible for promulgating the GS Rule and overseeing its implementation. EPA Regions and EPA Headquarters will have different re sponsibilities. If a State does not seek or obtain approval for prim acy of the Class VI program, EPA Regions will directly implement the program (see section 4b(ii) of this document). (For this ICR, the burden for EPA Regions conducting these implementation ac tivities is combined with that for States with primacy to provide an overall burden for all permitting authorities.) Regions will review primacy applications submitted by the States in coordination with EPA headquarters. Lastly, Regions review waiver applications after States with primacy make an initial recommendation on whether to grant a waiver. The Regions will concur or not concur with the States’ decision (146.95(d)(2)).

Headquarters will also be responsible for updating the UIC database to enable it to hold Class VI compliance data and permit application data.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA will require the reporting of data from owners or operators in an electronic format acceptable to the Director for site, facility, and monitoring information. 8 Long-term retention of records in an electronic format may also be re quired at the Director's discretion. For records stored in an electronic format, information should be maintained digitally in multiple locations (i.e., backed-up) in accordance with best practices for electronic data.

Electronic reporting involves tr ansmitting UIC data in a standard electronic format that can be readily incorporated into Headquarters UIC database s 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 co llection methods. Electronic reporting offers an opportunity to:

• Reduce data entry;

• Reduce mailing costs;

• Reduce the routine process of handling paperwork;

8 To provide flexibility to owners and operators, during the initial year after rule promulgation, the UIC database will accept either hardcopy or electronic data submissions.

Page 17GS Rule ICR November 2010

• Reduce or eliminate the need to store large quantities of paper documents; and

• Increase the accuracy of reports submitted to EPA.

In 2007, EPA began creating a national UIC da tabase for well, facility, and compliance data submitted by permitting authorities. The nati onal UIC data model contains approximately 120 data elements related to various aspects of the UIC Program. At this time, several permitting authorities are actively participa ting in use of the national UIC da tabase. EPA encourages States to work with EPA Regional offices as much as possible in order to use the new database system for reporting of information regarding Class VI wells. The database includes a mechanism to electronically transfer data between exis ting State and EPA Regional databases and Headquarters’ database, eliminating the need for State UIC Program Direct ors to complete paper reporting forms. (The burden and cost associat ed with developing and maintaining the national UIC database is accounted for in the UIC Progr am ICR; the GS Rule is assumed to add a negligible cost to this requirement due to the small number of GS sites.)

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

In general, a small entity is defined as: (1) a small business with annual revenue less than $6 million according to Small Business Administra tion size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school distri ct or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small orga nization that is any not -for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and opera ted and is not dominant in its field

. In some cases, however, industries propose different standards for small businesses.

EPA expects that Class VI wells will be owned and operated by fossil fuel power generators, oil and gas extraction companies, an d oil and gas refineries. Because the resources necessary to construct injection wells that meet th e standards of the GS Ru le are significant, EPA believes that none of the owners or operators of Cl ass VI wells will be small entities. Therefore,

EPA assumes that the GS Rule will cause no significant impact on small entities.

5(d) Collection Schedule

The final GS Rule is scheduled for promulga tion in 2011; this ICR covers the first three years of implementation (2011 through 2013). Stat es wishing to obtain EPA approval for their Class VI programs will complete and submit Class VI primacy applications to EPA within 270 days of GS Rule promulgation. Under 40 CF R 145.31(e), EPA has 90 days to review each application. No other deadlines apply to owners or operators or to States during the ICR clearance period.

Because this ICR covers only the first three y ears of a regulation that will cover injection operations with potentially long life spans (i.e., up to 40 years ofinjection and 50 years of postinjection monitoring), EPA assumes that only a limited portion of the paperwork burden for GS projects will be captured in this ICR. EPA anticip ates that the majority of the activities during

the information collection will be associat ed with States applying for primacy.

Page 18GS Rule ICR November 2010

EPA estimates that approximately two operators are assumed to submit permit applications during the ICR clear ance period. Operators will c onduct these activities during the second and third years of the ICR period. EPA predicts that CO 2 GS well operators will begin to submit monitoring data and conduct MIT during the third year, but that they will not perform AoR re-evaluations, plug their injection wells, or perform PISC within th e period covered by this

ICR.

EPA estimates that 32 States will apply for pr imacy in the first y ear of the collection.

This is a conservative estimate based on the number of States with existing plans for GS operations or with existing Cla ss II wells that may be subject to conversion to Class VI.

Permitting authorities will review permit applications during the second and third years of the ICR period.

Page 19GS Rule ICR November 2010

6 ESTIMATING BURDEN A ND COST OF COLLECTION

This section contains EPA’s estimates of the burden and costs to respondents (i.e., well owner/operators and permitting authorities) associated with CO 2 GS Rule paperwork requirements, and federal burden and costs for reviewing respondent submissions. Section 6(a) provides burden estimates for all respondent types. 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) de scribes the respondent universe a nd the total burden and cost of this collection to respondents. Section 6(e) presents bottom line burden and costs for all respondents, and the burden statement for this information collection is in Section 6(f).

The burden and cost estimates for this ICR we re derived from unit cost estimates in the Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis 9 . Because so many activities are included in each rule requirement, the unit burden and cost associated with each activity are not shown in this section but are pr esented in detail in Chapter 5 (a nd associated appendices) of the Cost Analysis for the Final GS Rule 10 . Appendix A, Ex. A.1.1 of this ICR contains a detailed list of each activity for which owner or operator burde n is incurred (and for which a unit burden and cost has been estimated). Each activity is assigned an identification number (e.g., A-2) used to identify the activity in subseque nt exhibits. Activities are groupe d into larger categories that generally correspond to specific ru le sections. For instance, u nder the site characterization category (which corresponds to 40 CFR 146.82), ac tivities include seismi c surveys to identify faults and fractures in confining units, analysis of seismic histor y, literature searches to obtain geomechanical information, and cores and test s to obtain geomechanical information, among others. Similarly, a list of activities for permitti ng authorities is presented in Exhibit A.2.1.

Because site characterization costs for GS wells differ with the geology of the site, the size of the project, and whether an operator applies for a waiver, EPA estimated burden and cost for five different types of GS projects. EPA divided the projects by formation type into saline formations and depleted oil and gas reservoirs (Enhanced Recovery (ER) operations) and then

further subdivided based on whether the owner or operator was applying for a waiver and the size of the project. The five cate gories of projects are below:

• Saline formation, pilot-scale;

• Saline formation, large-scale, non-waivered;

• Saline formation, large-scale, waivered;

• Depleted oil and gas reservoir, (E R, large-scale) non-waivered; and

• Depleted oil and gas reservoir, (ER, large-scale) waivered.

For each type of project, the appendices pr esent burden and costs incurred by owners and operators, and by permitting authorities. Appendix A presents the incremental burden and costs for moving from the information collection require ments of the UIC program for the baseline

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis , EPA

816-R-10-008.

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Draft Cost Analysis for the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (Final GS Rule) , EPA

816-R10-013.

Page 20GS Rule ICR November 2010

scenario (Class I non-hazardous wells) to the sele cted alternative (Class VI rule) over the ten years following rule promulgation. EPA assumes that without the GS Rule, owners and operators would have constructed and operated GS wells according to UIC requirements for Class I nonhazardous wells, the standard used for construc tion of many experimental GS wells. Reporting and recordkeeping burden and costs for the select ed alternative and baseline are presented in Appendix B and C, respectively. The incremental burden and costs presented in Appendix A are obtained by subtracting the burden and cost for complying with the baseline scenario from the full burden and cost of complying with the selected alternative.

EPA estimates that the average annual ne t change burden (for owners/operators, permitting authorities, and the Agency) for the ICR clearance period is 17,913 hours, for a total of 53,740 burden hours. The average annual net cha nge cost is $12.3 million, for a total cost of $36.9 million from 2011 through 2013. Average a nnual net change burden and costs are provided in Exhibit 6.1a below.

Exhibit 6.1a: Average Annual Net Change Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013)

Source Category Annual Respondents Annual Responses Annual Burden (hrs) Annual Labor Cost ($) Annual Capital Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($)

Owners and Operators 1.0 6.9 1,549 204,574 5,827,027 5,454,346 11,485,946 Permitting

Authorities 10.7 23.6 11,241 555,763

- - 555,763 Agency 1.0 11.7 5,123 256,880

- - 256,880

Total 12.6 42.3 17,913 1,017,217 5,827,027 5,454,346 12,298,589 Source: Appendix A.3.2d

Notes: 1. Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. 2. “Annual Burden Hours” reflects an annual averag e for all project types over the 3-year ICR period.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

6(a)(i) Burden to Owners and Operators of CO2 GS Wells

EPA’s estimate of the annua l reporting and recordkeepi ng burden to owners and operators associated with submitting permit applications (and applying for waivers from the requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW), delineating the AoR and performing corrective action, pre-operati onal testing, testing and m onitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping during the ICR clearance pe riod is presented in Exhibit 6.1b.

Page 21GS Rule ICR November 2010

Exhibit 6.1b: Average Annual Net Change Owner and Operator Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013)

Source Category Annual Respondents Annual Responses Annual Burden (hrs) Annual Labor Cost ($) Annual Capital Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($)

Saline Pilot

- - - - - - - Saline Large,

Non-Waivered 0.9 4.9 1,089 145,151 5,459,317 4,189,789 9,794,257 Saline Large,

Waivered 0.1 2.1 461 59,423 367,710 1,264,556 1,691,689ER, NonWaivered

- - - - - - - ER, Waivered

- - - - - - - Total 1.0 6.9 1,549 204,574 5,827,027 5,454,346 11,485,946 Source: Appendix A.3.2a

Notes: 1. Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. 2. “Annual Burden Hours” reflects an annual averag e for all project types over the 3-year ICR period.

The annual average net change burden to owners and operators of Class VI wells nationwide during the ICR clearance period is estimated to be 1,549 hours. The activities during the ICR clearance period include the following: preparing the permit application and applying for waivers (ten percent of owne rs and operators are assumed to apply for waivers), performing geological site characterization, developing neces sary plans, and pre- operational testing and reporting, including modeling the AoR and perf orming all pre-operati onal corrective action. Owners and operators will also begin collecting op erating and monitoring data as required by the Monitoring and Testing Plan and will begin submitting semi-annual reports. They will also begin periodic MIT. The burden is assumed to be incu rred by owners and operators with projects in large saline aquifers. No pilot sali ne projects or enhanced recovery projects are expected to begin during the ICR period.

EPA does not expect that any operators will conduct activities associated with periodic AoR re-evaluations, plan updates, injection well plugging, or PISC during the three years covered by this ICR. These will occur in subseq uent ICR periods (see Appendix A, Exhibit A.3.2 for net change burden for year s 4-10 following promulgation.

EPA recognizes that many UIC informati on collection activitie s are performed by contractors. The operator unit burden estimates reported in this section represen t a composite of the operator time required to both perform an info rmation collection activit y and to supervise a contractor when the contractor performs the activity. Contractor serv ices are not generally broken out into labor and other costs for this ICR; therefore, all contractor costs are considered

O&M costs.

Page 22GS Rule ICR November 2010

6(a)(ii) Burden to Permitting Authorities

Permitting authorities’ burden associated w ith implementing Class VI programs arises from program oversight and reviewing and re sponding to permit applications (including applications for waivers from the requirements to inject below the lowermost USDW) and preoperational reports, operator testing and monito ring reports, AoR re-evaluations, and plugging and post-injection reports submitted by operators. Note that permitting authority burden includes burden for EPA Regions directly implementing the Class VI rule in States that do not have primacy, as well as burden for States. Average annual net change permitting authority burden associated with oversight of Class VI programs is presented in Exhibit 6.1c.

Exhibit 6.1c: Average Annual Net Chan ge Permitting Authorities Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013)

Source Category Annual Respondents Annual Responses Annual Burden (hrs) Annual Labor Cost ($) Annual Capital Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($)

Saline Pilot

- - - - - - - Saline Large,

Non-Waivered 0.6 1.1 10 518

- - 518 Saline Large,

Waivered 0.1 1.2 9 463

- - 463ER, NonWaivered

- - - - - - - ER, Waivered

- - - - - - -ProjectIndependent

Activities 10.7 21.3 11,221 554,783

- - 554,783

Total 10.7 23.6 11,241 555,763

- - 555,763 Source: Appendix A.3.2b

Notes: 1. Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. 2. “Annual Burden Hours” reflects an annual averag e for all project types over the 3-year ICR period. 3. The net change in “Annual Burden” for large saline non-wa ivered projects is positive due to an increase in the burden for permitting authorities to review monitoring reports submitted by operators under the selected alternative in comparison to the baseline.

EPA estimates that the average annual net change burden to permitting authorities

associated with this information collection will be 11,241 hours. The bur den is allocated as

follows:

• The majority of the burden is associated with completing primacy applications and staff training, which will impose an av erage annual net change burden of 11,221 hours during the 3 years covered by this ICR, as shown in the “Project Independent Activities” row of Exhibit 6.1c. EPA estimates that applying for primacy will require 0.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs), or 1,040 hours, per State.

• Permitting authorities will spend an av erage of 19 hours annually overseeing approximately two Class VI well operato rs. This includes reviewing permit and waiver applications (if needed) for Cla ss VI wells, writing permits, and reviewing AoR studies and pre-operational data. EPA estimates that 32 of 57 States (or 56%

Page 23GS Rule ICR November 2010

percent of States) will appl y for and gain primacy with in the first year of the clearance period. Therefore, EPA estimates that 56 percent of the burden for these activities will be incurred by States and th e remaining 44 percent will be incurred by EPA Regions. Ten percent of applications received from large scale projects are assumed to include waiver applications. Permitting authorities will also begin to review operational and monito ring data submitted in semi -annual reports, along with

MIT results.

During the ICR clearance period, EPA predicts that primacy agencies will not spend any time reviewing AoR re-evaluations, updates to Ao R and Corrective Action Plans and other plans, or plugging and post-injection monitoring report s submitted by operators of Class VI sites, because no sites are expected to reach that phase during this period. This burden is expected to

be incurred after the ICR clear ance period. Appendix A, Exhibit A.3.2 presents the burden and costs for years 1-10 following rule promulgation.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

6(b)(i) Costs to Operators

Exhibit 6.1b shows the average annual net change costs for ow ners and operators of Class VI injection wells over the 3-year ICR clearance period. The average annual net change costs are approximately $11.5 million, which consists of $0.2 million in labor costs, $5.8 in capital costs and $5.5 million in O&M costs. An example of capital costs associ ated with reporting requirements under the GS Rule is installation a nd construction of monitoring wells. Examples of O&M costs include sampling costs, such as those for samples collected to develop geochemical baselines for the in jection and confining zones.

For costing purposes, EPA estimated the base hourly labor rates for two occupations: geologists and mining and geological engineers. EPA obtained the rates for geologists from the American Association of Petroleum Geologi sts’ 2008-2009 annual salary survey. Assuming 15- 19 years of experience, the rate is $6 7.02 (based on an annual salary of $139,400). 11 EPA obtained rates for mining and geol ogical engineers from the So ciety for Petroleum Engineers annual survey. For a reservoir engineer with 11-15 years of experience, the rate is $69.14 (based on an annual salary of $143,800). 12 EPA multiplied these rates by a loading factor of 1.6, as suggested by EPA’s November 2005 ICR Handbook, to account for overhead and benefits. Thus, the loaded labor rate for geologists is $107.23, and the rate for engineers is $110.62.

11 http://www.aapg.org/expl orer/salarysurvey.cfm

12 Society for Petroleum Engineers Annu al Membership Salary Survey High light Report. Prepared by Western Management Group. September 2008. p. 12 http://www.spe.org/spe-site/spe /spe/career/salary_survey/08S alarySurveyHighlights.pdf

Page 24GS Rule ICR November 2010

6(b)(ii) Costs to Permitting Authorities

Exhibit 6.1c shows that the average annual ne t change cost to permitting authorities is estimated at $0.6 million, all of which is labor co st. For this ICR, EPA assumed that the average hourly labor rate for a State employee is $30.90, base d on the Bureau of Labor Statistics average hourly wage for workers in the life, physic al, and social science occupations in 2008. 13 This rate was multiplied by 1.6 to get a loaded rate of $49.4 4. The base hourly labor rate for EPA Regions directly implementing the Class VI program in States without primacy is $31.34. This rate is based on federal employee pay scales issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel and Management 14
and was multiplied by 1.6 for a loaded rate of $50.14. As described in section 6(a)(ii), EPA estimates that 56 percent of the burden associat ed with reviewing permit applications will be incurred by States, and 44 percen t will be incurred by EPA Regions.

The incremental non-labor costs (capital and O&M) to permitting authorities associated with the Class VI program are estimated to be negligible.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

EPA Regions will have oversight responsibilities for the Class VI program. These include reviewing primacy applications, as well as revi ewing waiver applicatio ns after States have reviewed them (in States that do not have prim acy, burden to EPA Regions for reviewing waiver applications is counted as permitting author ity burden). Regions will review primacy applications submitted by the States and review ing waiver applications passed on by States.

EPA estimates that EPA Headquarters w ill spend 2 FTEs, or 4,160 hours, annually to update the data systems to manage Class VI data.

The total annual net change Agency bur den associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the GS Rule is 5,123 hours. As explained in section 6(b)(ii), EPA assumes the average hourly labor rate for salary a nd overhead and benefits for Agency staff to be $50.14. The annual net change Agency cost associated with this collection is $0.3 million. A summary of Agency costs is presented in Exhibit 6.1d.

13 Occupational Employment and Wages, 2008. Table 1. Nati onal employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2008. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf.

14 Salary Table 2008-GS, Incorporating the 2.5 Percent Gene ral Schedule Increase, Eff ective 2008. Hourly/Overtime Rates by Grade and Step. Grade 12, Step 5. http://www.opm.gov/oca/08t ables/html/gs_h.asp

.

Page 25GS Rule ICR November 2010

Exhibit 6.1d: Average Annual Net Chan ge Agency Burden and Costs for the GS Rule ICR (2011 – 2013)

Source Category Annual Respondents Annual Responses Annual Burden (hrs) Annual Labor Cost ($) Annual Capital Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) Saline Large,

Waivered 0.1 0.1 3 143

- - 143 ER, Waivered

- - - - - - -ProjectIndependent

Activities 1.0 11.7 5,120 256,737

- - 256,737

Total 1.0 11.7 5,123 256,880

- - 256,880 Source: Appendix A.3.2c

Notes: 1. Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. 2. “Annual Burden Hours” reflects an annual averag e for all project types over the 3-year ICR period.

6(d) Respondent Universe

In this section, EPA describes the number of respondents subject to each paperwork activity in this ICR. The res pondent universe is based on EPA’s assumptions of the number of permittees subject to each paperwork requireme nt, e.g., the number of permit applications 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 presente d in the burden and cost tables.

EPA estimates that 32 States will apply for a nd gain primacy within the first year of the clearance period. This number represents 56 percent of the 57 States, tribes, and territories currently active in the UIC program. EPA assumes that no tribes will seek primacy for Class VI wells during the information collection period.

EPA estimates that approximately two GS projects will begin the deployment process in years two and three of the ICR clearance period. This is based on the deployment schedule in the

cost model for the Cost Analysis for the Final GS Rule 15 . EPA predicts that approximately one of the two GS projects will be located in Stat es with primacy; thus it is estimated that approximately one State will incur paperwork bur den associated with operator submittals. EPA assumes the other GS project will be permitted under the authority of a program directly implemented by the EPA Regions.

During the three years covered by this ICR, approximately two operators will apply for a permit (including those who apply fo r a waiver). It is estimated th at approximately one owner or operator will apply for a permit in the s econd year of the ICR clearance period, and approximately one owner or operator will apply in the third year.

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Draft Cost Analysis for the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (Final GS Rule) , EPA

816-R10-013.

Page 26GS Rule ICR November 2010

6(e) Bottom Line Annual Burden and Costs

This section provides a description of bottom line estimates for implementing the federal requirements for underground injection of CO 2 for the purpose of GS. The bottom line net change burden hours and costs for owners and operators, permitting authorities, and the Agency

are the summaries of the hours and costs collectively incurred for a ll activities a ssociated with the change in moving from the information re quirements of the UIC program for Class I nonhazardous wells (baseline) to th e selected alternativ e under the GS Rule over the three years covered by this ICR. The first part of this se ction describes the estimated average annual net change costs and hourly burdens for owners a nd operators and permitting authorities. The second part discusses the potential net change cost and burden to EPA. Figure 6.2 presents a summary of the average annual net change respondent burde n over three years for owners and operators, permitting authorities, and EPA. All additional exhi bits relating to this ICR are in Appendix A, B, and C.

Page 27GS Rule ICR November 2010

Exhibit 6.2: Bottom Line Average Annual Net Change Burden and Costs for the
3-Year ICR Period

11.6 (=)

1.0 (+) Owners and Operators

10.7 Permitting Authorities

30.6 (=)

6.9 (+) Owners and Operators

23.6 Permitting Authorities

7.2 (=)

6.9 (/) Total annual Owners and Operators responses (from above)

0.97 Total annual number of Owners and Operators respondents (from above)

2.2 (=)

23.6 (/) Total annual Permitting Authority responses (from above)

10.7 Total annual number of Permitting Authority respondents (from above)

12790.5 (=)

1549.5 (+) Owners and Operators hours

11241.0 Permitting Authority hours

223.0 (=)

1549.5 (/) Total Owner and Operator annual hours (from above)

6.9 Total Owner and Operator responses (from above)

475.7 (=)

11241.0 (/) Total Permitting Authority annual hours (from above)

23.6 Total Permitting Authority responses (from above)
$ 11,281,372 (=)
$ 11,281,372 (+) Owners and Operators Capital and O&M costs
$ - Permitting Authority Capital and O&M costs
$ 12,041,709 (=) $ 11,485,946 (+) Owners and Operators costs $ 555,763 Permitting Authority costs
$ 17,913 (=)
$ 12,791 (+) Total respondent hours (from above) $ 5,123 Total EPA hours
$ 12,298,589 (=) $ 12,041,709 (+) Total respondent cost $ 256,880 Total EPA cost

2) Permitting Authorities include States, Tribes, and Regions acting on behalf of States and Tribes without primacy. Total Annual Cost (resp. plus Agency)

Notes: 1) Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Total Annual Respondent

Burden Hours

Hours per Response for Owners and Operators

Hours per Response for Permitting Authorities

Annual O&M and Capital Cost

Total Annual Respondent Cost

Total Annual Hours (resp. plus Agency) Annual Number of Respondents

Total Annual Responses

Annual Number of Responses per Owner/Operator

Annual Number of Responses per Permitting Authority

6(e)(i) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

The burden and costs incurre d by respondents to the CO 2 GS Rule differ over each of the 3 years covered by this ICR. The differences are due primarily to the fact that States applying for primacy will do so only during the first year of the ICR period. The EPA burden associated with reviewing primacy applications will be incu rred during the same year. In addition, the approximately two operators assumed to apply for Class VI permits will apply only during the second and third years of the ICR period. Permitti ng authority oversight burden during the ICR clearance period will vary accordingly, as St ates and EPA Regions respond to UIC permit applications and waiver applications by review ing the applications and writing permits. Owners and operators are expected to begin collecti ng monitoring data, conducting MIT, and submitting semi-annual reports during the third year of th e ICR period. Permitting authorities will review

Page 28GS Rule ICR November 2010

Page 29 these data. Appendix A, Exhibit A.3.2 presents the burden and costs for years 1-10 following rule promulgation.

6(f) Burden Statement

The annual net change public reporting and recordkeeping burd en for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,549 hours per CO 2 GS well owner/opera tor respondent per year, 1,054 hours per permitting authority responde nt per year, and 5,123 hours for the Agency per year for the 3-year ICR period. 16

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or di sclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This

includes the time needed to revi ew instructions; develop, acquire , install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, valid ating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providi ng information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructio ns and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of info rmation; search data sources; co mplete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disc lose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to re spond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CF R part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for the GS Rule under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0438, which is available for public viewing at the

Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Cent er Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclud ing legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)

566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is availabl e at http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documen ts in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk

Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Dock et ID No. (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0438), and OMB control number (2040-0278) in any correspondence.

16 The average burden hours were calculated by dividing the annual burden hours (from Figure 6.1a-d) by the annual number of respondents (from Figure 6.2), e.g., for owners and operators, 1510 ÷ 1.0 = 1510.