RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
AND
RECOVERY
ACT
BURDEN
REDUCTION
INITIATIVE
REVISED
DRAFT
COST­
BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
January
29,
2001
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
ES­
1
Major
Components
of
the
Proposed
Rule

Reduced
record
retention
time

Increased
flexibility
for
waste
handlers
to
hire
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
in
lieu
of
licensed
professional
engineers

Option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance

Replacement
of
RCRA
training
requirements
with
OSHA
standards

Editorial
changes
in
rule
language

Elimination
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements

Decreased
inspection
frequency

Changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records

Changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal

Reduced
frequency
for
submittal
of
reports
Executive
Summary
Introduction
On
May
22,
1995,
Congress
passed
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
PRA),
P.
L.
104­
13,
which
amends
44
U.
S.
C.
Chapter
35.
In
the
PRA,
Congress
directs
all
Federal
agencies
to
become
more
responsible
and
publicly
accountable
for
reducing
the
burden
of
Federal
paperwork
on
the
public.
"
Burden"
is
defined
as
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency
(
Section
3502(
2)
of
the
PRA).
Section
3505(
a)(
1)
of
the
PRA
sets
a
Federal
government­
wide
goal
of
achieving,
by
the
year
2001,
a
40­
percent
reduction
of
the
total
burden
imposed
annually
by
the
Federal
regulations
as
of
September
30,
1995.

In
response
to
this
mandate,
EPA
conducted
a
comprehensive
review
of
its
regulations
at
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
279
and
developed
a
proposed
rule
that
would
reduce
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
that
RCRA
regulations
impose
on
the
States,
the
public,
and
the
regulated
community.
The
major
components
of
the
proposed
rule
are
presented
in
the
table.

The
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
estimate
the
annual
reduction
in
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
regulatory
changes.
The
document
also
examines
environmental
implications
of
the
proposed
rule,
and
other
regulatory
issues
(
e.
g.,
impacts
to
small
entities).

Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Savings
under
the
Proposed
Rule
In
analyzing
the
annual
hour
and
cost
impacts
under
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
EPA
first
ascertained
the
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
existing
regulations
that
would
be
amended
by
the
rule.
The
hour
and
cost
burden
under
these
existing
regulations
is
currently
estimated
in
seven
of
1
Pursuant
to
the
PRA,
EPA
is
required
to
obtain
OMB
approval
before
it
can
require
the
regulated
community
to
submit
information
or
retain
records.
To
obtain
OMB
approval,
EPA
must
submit
an
ICR
that
describes,
among
other
things,
the
need,
use,
burden
hours,
and
costs
of
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

2
Several
of
the
ICRs
are
one
or
two
years
old.
EPA
updated
these
ICRs'
labor
costs
to
2000
levels
using
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor's
annual
employment
cost
index.

Draft;
Revision
3
Page
ES­
2
the
Agency's
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICRs).
1
The
total
burden
estimated
by
these
seven
ICRs
formed
the
analytical
"
baseline"
of
this
analysis.
EPA
then
estimated
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
by
incorporating
revised
assumptions
and
data
into
each
of
the
ICRs'
spreadsheets,
as
relevant,
and
computing
a
new
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden.
2
Finally,
EPA
compared
baseline
and
proposed
rule
hour
and
cost
burden
to
estimate
impacts
(
i.
e.,
savings)
under
the
proposed
rule.
[
Note
that
this
document
does
not
estimate
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
savings
to
regulatory
authorities
under
the
proposed
rule.]

The
table
below
shows
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
and
the
proposed
rule.
The
table
also
shows
the
total
annual
savings
in
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.
As
shown
in
the
table,
the
total
annual
savings
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
0.93
million
hours
(
33%
annual
reduction
from
the
baseline)
and
$
120.07
million
(
31%
reduction
from
the
baseline).

Summary
of
Total
Annual
Savings
under
the
Proposed
Rulea
Baseline
Proposed
Rule
Savings
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)

2,852,875
$
387,884,468
1,923,890
$
267,813,670
928,985
$
120,070,798
a
Table
contains
rounding
error.

Environmental
Quality
Implications
EPA
has
considered
the
environmental
quality
implications
of
the
proposed
rule
and
concluded
that
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
will
have
minimal
impact
on
the
protectiveness
of
the
RCRA
regulations.
The
basic
reason
for
this
finding
is
that
the
current
provisions
of
the
RCRA
program
that
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
(
e.
g.,
requirements
for
proper
waste
management,
monitoring,
clean
up)
would
be
preserved
under
the
proposal.
The
proposal
would
eliminate
or
modify
paperwork
requirements
that
have
been
deemed
unnecessary
because
they
add
little
to
the
protectiveness
of
the
regulations.
Most
of
these
paperwork
requirements
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
ES­
3
entail
notices
and
reports
that
are
obscure,
inconsequential,
or
infrequently
submitted
to
or
used
by
regulators.
Note,
however,
that
the
proposal
would
not
curtail
the
right
of
regulatory
agencies
to
request
any
of
the
information
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate.
Waste
handlers
must
continue
to
keep
on­
site
records
of
their
waste
management
activities
and
make
them
available
to
regulators
when
requested.
As
such,
the
rule
would
not
limit
regulators'
or
the
public's
ability
to
learn
what
is
happening
at
a
facility.

In
addition,
the
proposal
may
enhance
waste
handler
compliance
with
some
of
the
regulations.
For
example,
the
proposal
would
give
waste
handlers
added
flexibility
in
how
they
can
comply
with
the
regulations,
e.
g.,
flexibility
to
hire
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
in
lieu
of
a
licensed
professional
engineer
to
obtain
required
certifications.
Such
added
flexibility
in
the
regulations
may
make
it
easier
for
waste
handlers
to
comply
with
them.
The
rule
also
would
streamline
certain
requirements
(
e.
g.,
contingency
planning,
emergency
training)
that
were
deemed
duplicative
with
other
existing
Federal
program
requirements.
Such
streamlining
may
assist
waste
handlers
in
complying
with
the
regulations.
In
particular,
EPA
is
deferring
to
the
OSHA
emergency
training
requirements,
rather
than
requiring
the
emergency
training
currently
articulated
in
the
RCRA
regulations.
The
OSHA
requirements
are
more
thorough
than
the
existing
RCRA
emergency
training
requirements.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
i
Table
of
Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
1.1
Background
and
Need
for
Proposed
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
1.2
Purpose
and
Organization
of
the
Document
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
3
2.
ANNUAL
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
BASELINE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.1
Assumptions
Used
in
Analyzing
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Baseline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.2
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Baseline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
3
3.
ANNUAL
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1
Assumptions
Used
in
Analyzing
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.2
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
3
4.
ANNUAL
SAVINGS
IN
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
4.1
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Savings
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
4.2
Limitations
of
the
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
3
4.3
Burden
Impacts
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Not
Included
in
the
Quantitative
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
5
5.
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
IMPLICATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.1
Analysis
of
Environmental
Quality
Implications
of
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.2
Summary
of
Environmental
Quality
Implications
of
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
5
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
ii
6.
OTHER
POLICY
ISSUES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
1
6.1
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
1
6.2
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
2
6.3
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
3
6.4
Executive
Order
12989:
Environmental
Justice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
3
6.5
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
4
6.6
Executive
Order
12630:
Regulatory
Takings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
5
6.7
Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
6
7.
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
1
APPENDIX
A:
Summary
of
Regulatory
Requirements
Covered
in
Affected
ICRs
APPENDIX
B:
Crosswalk
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
the
Existing
ICRs
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
APPENDIX
C:
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
APPENDIX
D:
Modified
ICR
Exhibits
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
1­
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
and
Need
for
Proposed
Action
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
regulates
the
generation
and
management
of
hazardous
waste
under
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
279
using
the
authority
of
the
1976
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
as
amended.
As
part
of
its
hazardous
waste
regulations,
EPA
has
established
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
allow
the
Agency
to
enforce
and
ensure
compliance
with
the
regulations.

On
May
22,
1995,
Congress
passed
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
PRA),
P.
L.
104­
13,
which
amends
44
U.
S.
C.
Chapter
35.
In
the
PRA,
Congress
directs
all
Federal
agencies
to
become
more
responsible
and
publicly
accountable
for
reducing
the
burden
of
Federal
paperwork
on
the
public.
"
Burden"
is
defined
as
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency
(
Section
3502(
2)
of
the
PRA).
Section
3505(
a)(
1)
of
the
PRA
sets
a
Federal
government­
wide
goal
of
achieving,
by
the
year
2001,
a
40­
percent
reduction
of
the
total
burden
imposed
annually
by
the
Federal
regulations
as
of
September
30,
1995.

In
response
to
this
mandate,
EPA
conducted
a
comprehensive
review
of
its
regulations
at
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
279
and
developed
ideas
for
eliminating
or
streamlining
a
number
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
contained
in
the
regulations.
As
part
of
this
process,
EPA
consulted
with
a
small
number
of
State
experts
on
the
validity
of
the
ideas,
and
whether
these
ideas
would
detract
from
EPA's
mission
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
addition,
EPA
published
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
in
the
Federal
Register
on
June
18,
1999
to
seek
public
comment
on
the
ideas.
Finally,
EPA
discussed
its
burden
reduction
plans
in
a
number
of
public
forums,
including
a
national
public
meeting
in
April
2000
sponsored
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
on
reinventing
government.

Based
on
comments
received
from
stakeholders,
as
well
as
its
own
regulatory
analyses,
EPA
has
developed
a
proposed
rule
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
that
RCRA
regulations
impose
on
the
States,
the
public,
and
the
regulated
community.
The
regulatory
changes
contained
in
the
proposed
rule
would
have
minimal
impact
on
the
many
protections
that
EPA
has
established
over
the
years
for
human
health
and
the
environment.
At
the
same
time,
the
proposed
rule
would
eliminate
non­
essential
paperwork.
A
summary
of
the
major
components
of
the
proposed
rule
is
presented
in
Table
1­
1.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
1­
2
Table
1­
1
Summary
of
Major
Components
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Description
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Reduced
record
retention
time
Many
of
the
existing
recordkeeping
requirements
for
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs)
mandate
record
retention
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
EPA
is
proposing
to
reduce
the
length
of
time
waste
handlers
must
retain
certain
records
on
site
to
three
years
(
e.
g.,
operating
record
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73).

Hiring
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
in
lieu
of
licensed
professional
engineers
The
current
regulations
require
generators
and
TSDFs
to
obtain
a
licensed
engineer's
certification
as
specified
(
e.
g.,
to
certify
the
structural
integrity
of
existing
or
new
tank
systems).
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
all
the
RCRA
certification
requirements
to
allow
a
person
who
is
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
to
do
the
certification,
in
lieu
of
a
licensed
professional
engineer.

Option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
Large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
and
TSDFs
must
have
contingency
plans
to
minimize
hazards
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
fires,
explosions,
or
any
unplanned
release
of
hazardous
waste
to
the
environment.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
its
RCRA
regulations
to
indicate
that
these
waste
handlers
should
consider
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
This
guidance
provides
a
mechanism
for
consolidating
the
multiple
contingency
plans
that
waste
handlers
have
to
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations.

Replacement
of
RCRA
training
requirements
with
OSHA
standards
Under
existing
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3),
LQGs
and
TSDFs
must
train
their
employees
in
emergency
response
procedures.
EPA
is
proposing
to
rewrite
the
RCRA
regulations
to
have
waste
handlers
comply
with
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
for
emergency
response
training.
EPA
expects
this
amendment
to
minimize
apparent
duplication
between
the
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
requirements.

Editorial
changes
in
rule
language
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
specified
regulatory
language
by
eliminating
obsolete
terms
and/
or
rewording
the
language
to
make
it
clearer.

Elimination
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate
certain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
RCRA
regulations
in
order
to
eliminate
submission
of
duplicative
information
and/
or
unnecessary
burden
to
waste
handlers.

Decreased
inspection
frequency
Under
many
of
the
existing
RCRA
inspection
requirements,
EPA
specifies
a
frequency
at
which
waste
handlers
must
inspect
their
facility
and
equipment
(
e.
g.,
daily
for
tanks).
EPA
is
proposing
to
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
In
addition,
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
States
to
adjust
the
self­
inspection
frequencies,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
Table
1­
1
Summary
of
Major
Components
of
the
Proposed
Rule
(
continued)

Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Description
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
3
Pursuant
to
the
PRA,
EPA
is
required
to
obtain
OMB
approval
before
it
can
require
the
regulated
community
to
submit
information
or
retain
records.
To
obtain
OMB
approval,
EPA
must
submit
an
ICR
that
describes,
among
other
things,
the
need,
use,
burden
hours,
and
costs
of
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

Draft;
Revision
3
Page
1­
3
Changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
certain
requirements
under
which
waste
handlers
must
keep
records
on
site
and
submit
these
same
records
to
EPA.
EPA
would
now
require
waste
handlers
only
to
keep
these
records
on
site.

Changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
certain
regulations
that
require
document
submittal,
but
do
not
require
record
retention.
Under
the
proposal,
EPA
would
specify
that
waste
handlers
need
not
submit
the
information,
but
must
keep
it
on
site.

Reduced
frequency
for
submittal
of
reports
The
current
regulations
specify
that
waste
handlers
must
submit
documents
to
EPA
according
to
specified
frequencies
(
e.
g.,
semi­
annually).
Under
the
proposal,
EPA
would
reduce
the
submittal
frequency
of
certain
documents.

1.2
Purpose
and
Organization
of
the
Document
The
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
estimate
the
annual
reduction
in
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
regulatory
changes.
The
document
also
examines
environmental
implications
of
the
proposed
rule,
and
other
regulatory
issues
(
e.
g.,
impacts
to
small
entities).

In
analyzing
the
annual
hour
and
cost
impacts
under
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
EPA
first
ascertained
the
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
existing
regulations
that
would
be
amended
by
the
rule.
The
hour
and
cost
burden
under
these
existing
regulations
is
currently
estimated
in
seven
of
the
Agency's
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICRs).
3
These
ICRs
estimate
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
(
i.
e.,
inclusive
of
labor,
capital,
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs)
to
the
regulated
community
in
carrying
out
specific
RCRA
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
(
e.
g.,
compiling
information,
submitting
reports,
maintaining
records).
The
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
estimated
by
these
seven
ICRs
forms
the
analytical
"
baseline"
of
this
analysis.

EPA
then
estimated
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
by
incorporating
revised
assumptions
and
data
into
each
of
the
ICRs'
spreadsheets,
as
relevant,
and
4
Several
of
the
ICRs
are
one
or
two
years
old.
EPA
updated
these
ICRs'
labor
costs
to
2000
levels
using
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor's
annual
employment
cost
index.

Draft;
Revision
3
Page
1­
4
computing
a
new
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden.
4
These
revised
assumptions
and
data
are
based
on
EPA's
best
understanding
of
the
behavior
of
waste
handlers
under
the
proposed
regulatory
changes.

Finally,
EPA
compared
baseline
and
proposed
rule
hour
and
cost
burden
to
estimate
impacts
(
i.
e.,
savings)
under
the
proposed
rule.
[
Note
that
this
document
does
not
estimate
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
savings
to
regulatory
authorities
under
the
proposed
rule.]

The
remainder
of
the
document
is
organized
as
follows:


Chapter
2
Discusses
the
analytical
assumptions
and
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline.


Chapter
3
Discusses
the
analytical
assumptions
and
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.


Chapter
4
Compares
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
and
the
proposed
rule,
to
derive
savings
under
the
proposed
rule.
The
chapter
also
discusses
the
limitations
of
the
analysis
and
burden
impacts
not
included
in
the
quantitative
analysis.


Chapter
5
Briefly
discusses
the
environmental
implications
of
the
proposed
regulatory
changes.


Chapter
6
Discusses
other
policy
issues
related
to
the
proposed
rule
(
e.
g.,
environmental
justice,
children's
health).


Chapter
7
Lists
the
references
used
in
the
analysis.

Appendices
A
through
D
provide
background
information
on
the
assumptions
and
data
used
in
the
cost
analysis.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
2­
1
2.
ANNUAL
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
BASELINE
This
chapter
examines
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline,
based
on
EPA's
review
of
seven
existing
ICRs
affected
by
the
proposed
rule.
Section
2.1
discusses
the
types
of
analytical
assumptions
used
in
estimating
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
baseline.
Section
2.2
presents
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline.
Refer
to
Appendix
A
for
a
summary
of
the
regulatory
requirements
covered
in
the
seven
existing
ICRs
affected
by
the
proposed
rule.

2.1
Assumptions
Used
in
Analyzing
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Baseline
The
primary
assumptions
used
in
estimating
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
in
each
of
the
seven
ICRs
include
the
waste
handler
universe
carrying
out
specified
paperwork
activities,
as
well
as
the
associated
hour
and
cost
burden.
A
general
discussion
of
these
analytical
assumptions
follows.
(
Refer
to
the
ICRs
themselves
for
specific
data
and
assumptions
used
in
their
hour
and
cost
calculations.)

Waste
Handler
Universe.
The
waste
handler
universe
(
also
referred
to
as
"
respondent
universe"
in
the
ICRs)
consists
of
the
total
number
of
sites
(
or
facilities)
expected
to
carry
out
each
activity
covered
in
the
ICR.
The
waste
handler
universe
may
vary
among
activities
covered
in
an
ICR
because
not
all
sites
must
complete
each
activity.
In
identifying
and
quantifying
the
waste
handler
universe,
EPA
normally
refers
to
EPA
hazardous
waste
databases
(
e.
g.,
Biennial
Reporting
System
(
BRS),
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Information
System
(
RCRIS))
or
existing
reports
and/
or
conducts
consultations
with
affected
waste
handlers.

Hour
and
Cost
Burden.
As
mentioned,
"
burden"
is
defined
by
the
PRA
as
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
resources
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
process
and
maintain
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

Hour
Burden
­
In
estimating
hour
burden,
EPA
estimates
the
time
for
waste
handlers
to
conduct
each
of
the
information
collection
activities
covered
in
the
ICR.
In
doing
so,
EPA
apportions
hourly
burden
estimates
to
each
of
the
labor
categories
(
e.
g.,
legal,
managerial,
technical,
clerical)
as
appropriate
that
the
waste
handlers
would
require
for
each
activity.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
2­
2
For
rule­
related
ICRs,
EPA
may
draw
hour
estimates
from
Economic
Analyses
(
EAs)
or
other
rule­
related
documents.
EPA
also
may
conduct
consultations
with
States
and/
or
the
regulated
community,
or
use
its
best
professional
judgment.

Cost
Burden
­
The
total
cost
for
waste
handlers
to
carry
out
paperwork
activities
may
include
labor
costs,
capital/
start­
up
costs,
and/
or
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs,
as
applicable.
A
brief
discussion
of
these
costs
follows.

Labor
Costs
­
Labor
cost
per
waste
handler
is
the
hourly
cost
for
each
labor
category
(
i.
e.,
legal,
managerial,
technical,
and
clerical)
to
conduct
a
particular
paperwork
activity
multiplied
by
the
hour
estimate
for
the
labor
category
to
complete
said
activity.
The
sum
of
these
results
is
the
labor
cost
per
year
per
waste
handler
and
is
multiplied
by
the
number
of
waste
handlers
to
obtain
total
labor
costs.

Labor
rates
used
in
these
calculations
may
be
based
on
the
EA
of
a
rule,
some
other
reference
document
(
e.
g.,
hourly
wage
rates
from
a
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
publication
on
employment
and
earnings),
consultations
with
the
regulated
community,
or
EPA's
best
professional
judgment.
Labor
rates
reflect
the
total
cost
to
employ
an
individual
and
include
the
cost
of
salaries,
fringe
benefits
(
e.
g.,
paid
leave,
health
insurance,
retirement
savings,
legally
required
benefits),
and
other
overhead
costs
(
e.
g,
office
space,
furniture,
equipment
and
computers,
supplies).

Capital/
Start­
up
Costs
­
Capital/
start­
up
costs
usually
include
any
produced
physical
good
needed
to
provide
the
needed
information.
Start­
up
capital
must
be
purchased
for
the
specific
purpose
of
satisfying
EPA's
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Capital
goods
include
computers,
machinery,
or
equipment.
Start­
up
capital
costs
are
usually
incurred
at
the
beginning
of
an
information
collection
period
and
are
usually
incurred
only
once.
However,
when
developing
the
ICR,
EPA
may
annualize
the
cost
over
the
projected
time
that
information
will
be
collected
or
the
expected
lifetime
of
the
equipment,
whichever
is
shorter.
A
one­
time
capital
cost
is
annualized
over
multiple
years
using
OMB's
approved
annual
discount
rate
of
seven
percent.

Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
­
O&
M
costs
are
those
costs
associated
with
a
paperwork
requirement
incurred
continuously
over
the
life
of
the
ICR.
They
are
defined
by
the
PRA
as
"
the
recurring
dollar
amount
of
cost
associated
with
O&
M
or
purchasing
services."
For
example,
O&
M
costs
may
include
photocopying
and
postage,
or
purchase
of
contractor
or
lab
services.
O&
M
costs
may
also
include
the
general
upkeep
of
capital
equipment.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
2­
3
2.2
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Baseline
A
summary
of
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
is
presented
in
Table
2­
1.
As
shown
in
the
table,
the
total
annual
burden
under
the
baseline
is
approximately
2.85
million
hours
and
$
387.88
million.
The
primary
burden
comes
from
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
LDR)
Program
at
40
CFR
Part
268,
which
accounts
for
41
percent
of
the
total
annual
hour
burden
and
35
percent
of
the
total
annual
cost
burden.

Table
2­
1
Summary
of
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Baselinea
ICR
Name
ICR
Number
OMB
Approval
Date
Annual
Hours
Annual
Costs
(
in
2000$)

Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
959.10
11/
15/
98
64,181
$
82,924,275
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
1189.06
and
1189.07
10/
1/
98
20,111
$
1,761,883
New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
1361.08
10/
12/
99
316,892
$
43,805,428
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442.17
Not
applicableb
1,182,612
$
134,187,680
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
1571.06
12/
22/
99
804,467
$
48,925,366
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
1572.05
10/
2/
00
287,069
$
17,810,569
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
1573.06
3/
31/
00
177,543
$
58,469,267
Total
2,852,875
$
387,884,468
a
Table
contains
rounding
error.

b
Awaiting
OMB
approval.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
3­
1
3.
ANNUAL
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
This
chapter
examines
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.
Section
3.1
discusses
the
analytical
assumptions
used
in
estimating
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule.
Section
3.2
presents
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule.
See
Appendix
B
for
a
crosswalk
of
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
to
each
of
the
seven
existing
ICRs.

3.1
Assumptions
Used
in
Analyzing
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
To
estimate
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
incorporated
revised
assumptions
and
data
into
each
of
the
seven
ICRs'
spreadsheets,
as
relevant,
and
computed
a
new
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden.
The
basic
assumptions
used
in
estimating
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
are
summarized
in
Table
3­
1.
EPA
applied
these
basic
assumptions,
as
appropriate,
in
analyzing
each
requirement
amended
by
the
proposed
rule.
See
Appendix
C
for
further
information
on
the
proposed
changes
to
specific
RCRA
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
the
assumptions
used
in
estimating
the
revised
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
associated
with
these
amended
requirements.
See
Appendix
D
for
the
spreadsheets
used
to
calculate
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.

Table
3­
1
Summary
of
Basic
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Reduced
record
retention
time
EPA
assumes
that,
on
average,
a
waste
handler
places
the
typical
document
in
its
file
cabinet
once,
rather
than
retrieving
and
re­
filing
it
on
an
on­
going
basis.
Thus,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
no
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change.

Hiring
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
in
lieu
of
licensed
professional
engineers
Although
the
proposed
change
might
make
it
more
convenient
for
the
regulated
community
to
obtain
certifications,
waste
handlers
still
have
to
obtain
a
certification
from
a
specialist.
Thus,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
no
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change.

Option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
Although
EPA
expects
this
proposed
regulatory
change
to
facilitate
compliance,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
proposed
change
will
result
in
any
significant
burden
reduction.
Waste
handlers
would
still
have
to
follow
each
of
the
individual
requirements
for
creating
a
contingency
plan
under
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
Thus,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
will
not
see
a
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change.
Table
3­
1
Summary
of
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
(
continued)

Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
3­
2
Replacement
of
RCRA
training
requirements
with
OSHA
standards
EPA
is
proposing
to
rewrite
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
to
have
facilities
comply
with
the
OSHA
regulations
for
emergency
response
training,
in
lieu
of
RCRA­
specific
training.
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
no
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change,
since
waste
handlers
are
currently
satisfying
RCRA
training
requirements
through
OSHA
training,
where
possible.

Editorial
changes
in
rule
language
The
proposed
change
will
modify
specified
regulatory
language
by
eliminating
obsolete
terms
and/
or
rewording
the
language
to
make
it
clearer.
It
will
not
change
any
of
the
existing
regulatory
requirements.
Thus,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
will
see
no
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change.

Elimination
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
a
100
percent
reduction
in
hour
and
cost
burden
(
i.
e.,
no
hour
or
cost
burden
would
be
incurred
by
waste
handlers)
under
the
specific
requirements
being
eliminated,
since
waste
handlers
would
no
longer
have
to
conduct
the
required
activities.

Decreased
inspection
frequency
The
proposed
rule
would
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
Although
this
represents
an
80­
percent
reduction
in
inspection
frequency
(
i.
e.,
inspections
would
be
conducted
once
a
week,
instead
of
five
times
a
week),
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
will
not
see
an
80­
percent
reduction
in
hour
or
cost
burden.
Specifically,
EPA
assumes
that,
in
conducting
daily
inspections,
waste
handlers
have
developed
certain
efficiencies
in
performing
their
inspection
duties
(
i.
e.,
via
routinized
behavior).
EPA
assumes
that,
under
the
proposed
rule,
waste
handlers
would
likely
be
less
efficient
in
conducting
weekly
inspections,
and
thus,
will
not
see
a
commensurate
(
i.
e.,
80
percent)
reduction
in
burden.
Thus,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
will
experience
a
50­
percent
hour
and
cost
burden
reduction
in
conducting
weekly
inspections.

In
addition
to
decreased
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
hazardous
waste
tanks,
the
proposed
rule
would
allow
States
to
establish
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
EPA
has
not
examined
the
impact
of
these
case­
by­
case
variances
because
of
the
many
uncertainties
involved.
That
is,
States
would
grant
the
variance
to
specific
sites
based
on
many
factors,
such
as
compliance
history,
environmental
performance,
and
existing
controls
(
e.
g.,
monitoring
devices)
at
the
site.
Table
3­
1
Summary
of
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
(
continued)

Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Analytical
Assumptions
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
3­
3
Changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records
Under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
would
modify
certain
requirements
under
which
waste
handlers
must
keep
records
on
site
and
submit
these
same
records
to
EPA.
EPA
would
now
require
waste
handlers
only
to
keep
these
records
on
site.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
a
50­
percent
reduction
in
labor
hour
and
cost
burden
from
this
proposed
regulatory
change.
They
also
would
see
a
cost
savings
for
avoiding
postage
fees.

Changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal
Under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
would
specify
that
waste
handlers
must
keep
certain
documents
on
site,
instead
of
submitting
them
to
the
regulatory
authority.
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
no
change
in
hour
or
cost
burden
from
this
proposed
regulatory
change
because
the
burden
of
submitting
the
document
would
be
replaced
by
the
burden
of
recordkeeping.

Reduced
frequency
for
submittal
of
reports
The
reporting
frequency
for
specified
reports
would
be
reduced
(
e.
g.,
from
semiannually
to
annually).
EPA
assumes
that
waste
handlers
would
see
a
50
percent
reduction
in
hour
and
cost
burden
under
this
proposed
regulatory
change.

3.2
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Table
3­
2
summarizes
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.
As
shown
in
the
table,
the
total
annual
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
1.92
million
hours
and
$
267.81
million.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
3­
4
Table
3­
2
Summary
of
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rulea
ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Annual
Hours
Annual
Costs
(
in
2000$)

Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
959.10
58,725
$
82,535,542
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
1189.06
and
1189.07
19,041
$
1,695,059
New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
1361.08
316,575
$
43,787,272
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442.17b
310,242
$
17,229,223
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
1571.06
804,331
$
48,918,173
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
1572.05
237,555
$
15,185,638
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
1573.06
177,421
$
58,462,763
Total
1,923,890
$
267,813,670
a
Table
contains
rounding
error.
b
The
ICR
has
not
been
approved
by
OMB.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
4­
1
4.
ANNUAL
SAVINGS
IN
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
TO
THE
REGULATED
COMMUNITY
UNDER
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
This
chapter
examines
the
savings
in
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
proposed
rule.
Section
4.1
compares
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
under
the
baseline
and
the
proposed
rule
to
derive
annual
savings.
Section
4.2
discusses
limitations
of
the
analysis.
Section
4.3
discusses
burden
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
not
included
in
the
analysis
of
Section
4.1.

4.1
Annual
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Savings
to
the
Regulated
Community
under
the
Proposed
Rule
EPA
compared
baseline
and
proposed
rule
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
to
derive
annual
savings.
A
summary
of
the
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
savings
under
the
proposed
rule
is
presented
in
Table
4­
1.
The
table
presents
the
hour
and
cost
impacts
according
to
the
seven
ICRs
affected
by
the
proposed
rule.

As
shown
in
the
table,
the
total
annual
hour
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
is
approximately
2.85
million
hours.
The
total
annual
hour
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
1.92
million
hours.
Thus,
the
total
annual
hour
burden
savings
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
0.93
million
hours
(
33%
annual
reduction
from
the
baseline).

The
total
annual
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
is
approximately
$
387.88
million.
The
total
annual
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
$
267.81
million.
Thus,
the
total
annual
cost
burden
savings
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
$
120.07
million
(
31%
annual
reduction
from
the
baseline).

Following
are
the
primary
reasons
for
the
annual
savings
under
the
rule:


The
overwhelming
majority
of
annual
savings
under
the
rule
results
from
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
the
LDR
program
at
40
CFR
Part
268.
The
proposed
LDR
program
changes
would
result
in
an
annual
burden
savings
of
approximately
0.87
million
hours
and
$
116.96
million
(
i.
e.,
approximately
94%
of
the
total
annual
hour
savings
and
97%
of
the
total
annual
cost
savings
under
the
proposed
rule).
Most
of
the
savings
under
the
LDR
program
(
greater
than
95%)
arise
from
the
proposed
elimination
of
the
waste
determination
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
and
the
associated
recordkeeping
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
6).
The
LDR
ICR
estimates
that
approximately
167,200
sites
conduct
waste
determinations
and
keep
records
each
year.
These
sites
would
be
completely
relieved
of
these
activities
under
the
rule.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
4­
2
Table
4­
1
Summary
of
Annual
Savings
under
the
Proposed
Rulea
ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Baseline
Proposed
Rule
Savings
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
(
in
2000$)

Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
959.10
64,181
$
82,924,275
58,725
$
82,535,542
5,456
$
388,733
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
1189.06
and
1189.07
20,111
$
1,761,883
19,041
$
1,695,059
1,070
$
66,824
New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
1361.08
316,892
$
43,805,428
316,575
$
43,787,272
317
$
18,156
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442.17b
1,182,612
$
134,187,680
310,242
$
17,229,223
872,370
$
116,958,457
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
1571.06
804,467
$
48,925,366
804,331
$
48,918,173
136
$
7,193
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,

and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
1572.05
287,069
$
17,810,569
237,555
$
15,185,638
49,514
$
2,624,931
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
1573.06
177,543
$
58,469,267
177,421
$
58,462,763
122
$
6,504
Total
2,852,875
$
387,884,468
1,923,890
$
267,813,670
928,985
$
120,070,798
a
Table
contains
rounding
error.

b
The
ICR
has
not
been
approved
by
OMB.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
4­
3

The
proposed
rule
would
modify
the
self­
inspection
frequency
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
under
40
CFR
264.195(
b)
and
265.195(
a).
The
rule
would
reduce
the
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly.
The
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
ICR
estimates
that
roughly
1,000
tank
systems
are
inspected
daily
under
the
existing
regulations.
Under
the
rule,
sites
owning/
operating
these
tank
systems
would
see
an
annual
savings
of
approximately
37,200
hours
and
$
2.02
million
(
i.
e.,
approximately
4%
of
the
total
annual
hour
savings
and
2%
of
the
total
annual
cost
savings
under
the
proposed
rule).


The
remaining
regulatory
changes
would
provide
minimal
savings
to
the
regulated
community.
Many
of
these
proposed
changes
affect
paperwork
activities
that
currently
impose
a
small
burden
and/
or
apply
to
a
small
population
of
waste
handlers.
For
example,
the
proposed
rule
would
modify
requirements
at
40
CFR
265.94(
a)(
2)
for
reporting
of
groundwater
indicator
parameters
and
surface
elevations
to
the
regulatory
agency.
The
rule
specifies
that
sites
no
longer
need
to
submit
this
documentation,
but
must
keep
it
on
site.
The
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
ICR
estimates
that
roughly
500
sites
currently
submit
these
reports.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
these
sites
would
no
longer
have
to
submit
these
reports,
but
keep
them
on
site,
resulting
in
an
annual
savings
of
about
4,000
hours
and
$
188,620
(
i.
e.,
less
than
1%
of
total
annual
hour
or
cost
savings
under
the
rule).

4.2
Limitations
of
the
Analysis
Following
are
the
primary
limitations
of
this
analysis:


In
estimating
hour
and
cost
burden
reductions,
EPA
used
the
latest
version
of
the
ICRs
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.
Note,
however,
that
the
LDR
ICR
(
ICR
Number
1442.17)
is
currently
being
reviewed
by
OMB
as
part
of
the
ICR
renewal
process,
and
thus,
its
data
and/
or
assumptions
may
change
before
being
finalized.


The
hour
and
cost
savings
in
the
analysis
are
based
solely
on
EPA's
examination
and
manipulation
of
seven
ICRs
of
the
RCRA
program.
EPA
did
not
conduct
any
literature
reviews
or
consultations
with
industry
in
preparing
the
analysis.
EPA
notes
that
the
ICRs
themselves
are
based
on
a
relatively
straightforward
interpretation
of
the
regulations
and
do
not
reflect
all
of
the
varied
practices
and
approaches
that
industry
takes
in
complying
with
the
regulations.
5
Note
that
the
hourly
labor
costs
for
waste
handlers'
employees
(
i.
e.,
legal,
managerial,
technical,
and
clerical
staff)
differ
across
ICRs.
In
preparing
each
ICR,
EPA
considered
the
universe
of
waste
handlers
performing
the
paperwork
activities
and
tailored
the
ICR's
labor
rates
to
that
universe,
as
appropriate.
Therefore,
EPA
has
not
attempted
to
"
standardize"
these
rates
for
this
analysis.

Draft;
Revision
3
Page
4­
4

Some
of
the
ICRs
used
in
this
analysis
are
one
or
two
years
old.
In
preparing
this
analysis,
EPA
updated
their
labor
costs
to
year
2000
levels
using
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor's
annual
employment
cost
indices,
but
left
their
non­
labor
costs
(
e.
g.,
O&
M
costs)
unchanged.
5
The
majority
of
O&
M
costs
involve
postage
costs
(
i.
e.,
stamp/
envelope),
which
have
changed
little
over
the
past
two
years,
and
photocopying
costs,
which
for
the
past
several
years
EPA
has
estimated
at
10
cents/
page.
In
addition,
the
rule
would
not
have
much
effect
on
waste
handlers'
capital
costs.
The
rule
would
modify
RCRA's
paperwork
requirements,
but
not
the
technical
requirements
for
which
capital
costs
are
normally
incurred.
The
only
notable
capital
cost
impact
involves
cost
savings
associated
with
the
purchase
of
fewer
file
cabinets.
Such
savings
are
not
included
in
this
analysis.


Although
some
of
the
ICRs
are
one
or
two
years
old,
EPA
did
not
attempt
to
update
their
waste
handler
universe
estimates
for
this
analysis.
However,
EPA
notes
that
several
of
the
ICRs'
universe
estimates
are
based
on
the
1997
Biennial
Reporting
System,
which
provides
the
most
up­
to­
date
data
on
the
regulated
community
currently
available
to
the
Agency
(
i.
e.,
1999
Biennial
Reporting
System
data
are
not
currently
available).


The
proposed
rule
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
Federal
program.
Thus,
States
are
not
required
to
adopt
or
receive
authorization
for
it.
This
analysis
assumes
all
States
would
adopt
the
proposed
rule.
If
fewer
States
adopt
the
proposed
rule,
the
actual
annual
hour
and
cost
savings
will
be
lower
than
estimated
in
this
analysis.


This
analysis
assumes
that
all
waste
handlers
will
adopt
the
proposed
changes,
as
applicable.
However,
EPA
acknowledges
that
a
percentage
of
waste
handlers
may
continue
to
carry
out
particular
recordkeeping
requirements
even
if
the
corresponding
requirement
is
eliminated
(
i.
e.,
for
proof
of
compliance
in
an
enforcement
action).


The
analysis
does
not
address
certain
minor
burden
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule,
e.
g.,
incremental
costs
to
read
and
understand
the
new
regulations
(
i.
e.,
learning
curve).
See
Section
4.3
of
this
document
for
further
discussion
of
these
impacts.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
4­
5
4.3
Burden
Impacts
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Not
Included
in
the
Quantitative
Analysis
Following
are
the
primary
burden
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
not
included
in
the
analysis
of
Section
4.1:


Increased
Regulatory
Efficiency.
The
proposed
rule
would
(
i)
clarify
the
language
contained
in
the
existing
regulations
and
(
ii)
eliminate
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
that
are
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
the
regulated
community.
As
a
result,
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
rule
could
reduce
noncompliance
and
resultant
penalties
and
increase
efficiency
to
the
regulated
community
in
carrying
out
the
regulations.


Industry's
Learning
Curve.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
waste
handlers
to
re­
read
the
regulations
in
order
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
proposed
regulations.
In
addition,
some
waste
handlers
may
have
to
revise
their
standard
operating
procedures
in
order
to
comply
with
the
proposed
regulations
(
e.
g.,
revise
procedures
for
entering
information
into
the
operating
record).
Therefore,
the
proposed
rule
could
result
in
slight
initial
implementation
cost
to
waste
handlers.


Reduced
Capital
Costs.
The
proposed
rule
would
(
i)
reduce
the
retention
time
of
certain
records
(
e.
g.,
personnel
training
records,
BIF
records)
and
(
ii)
eliminate
specified
recordkeeping
requirements
altogether.
As
a
result,
the
number
of
records
kept
by
waste
handlers
would
decrease,
and
thus,
waste
handlers
would
see
cost
savings
associated
with
the
purchase
of
fewer
file
cabinets.


Reduced
Agency
Burden.
The
proposed
rule
would
specify
that
waste
handlers
need
not
submit
certain
documents
to
their
regulatory
agency
(
i.
e.,
EPA
or
an
Authorized
State),
but
must
keep
the
documents
on
site.
Therefore,
the
proposed
rule
would
reduce
the
number
of
documents
that
regulatory
agencies
have
to
review
and
process,
and
thus,
could
result
in
hour
and
cost
savings
to
them.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
5­
1
5.
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
IMPLICATIONS
This
chapter
discusses
the
environmental
quality
implications
of
the
proposed
rule.
Section
5.1
analyzes
the
potential
environmental
quality
implications
of
the
major
proposed
regulatory
changes.
Section
5.2
summarizes
EPA's
conclusions
about
the
overall
protectiveness
of
the
rule.

5.1
Analysis
of
Environmental
Quality
Implications
of
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
The
proposed
regulatory
changes
to
the
existing
regulations
and
their
potential
environmental
quality
implications,
if
any,
are
described
below:


Reduced
record
retention
time.
EPA
is
proposing
that
there
be
a
three­
year
retention
period
for:
(
i)
personnel
training
records,
(
ii)
all
BIF
records,
and
(
iii)
certain
operating
record
requirements
under
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73.
A
brief
discussion
of
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
on
record
retention
time
is
presented
below.

Personnel
Training
Records
­
EPA
is
proposing
that
there
be
only
a
three­
year
retention
time
for
all
personnel
training
records,
to
bring
this
requirement
in
line
with
other
RCRA
record
retention
requirements.
EPA
believes
that
keeping
records
longer
than
three
years
is
unnecessarily
burdensome.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
personnel
training
records
are
not
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.

BIF
Records
­
EPA
proposes
to
decrease
the
retention
period
for
all
BIF
records
from
closure
of
the
facility
to
three
years,
bringing
it
in
line
with
other
RCRA
recordkeeping
retention
periods.
EPA
believes
that
requiring
records
to
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
is
unnecessarily
burdensome.
In
addition,
based
on
its
experience
under
the
RCRA
program,
EPA
believes
the
three­
year
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
enable
regulators
to
effectively
monitor
industry
compliance
and
take
enforcement
actions,
as
needed.

Operating
Record
Requirements
under
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73
­
EPA
proposes
to
modify
a
number
of
the
operating
record
requirements
under
sections
264.73
and
265.73
to
require
only
a
three­
year
limit
on
keeping
information
after
it
is
entered
into
the
record.
Among
other
things,
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
retention
time
limit
for
records
on
waste
analyses;
monitoring,
testing,
and
analytical
data;
waste
determinations;
certifications;
and
notifications.
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
changes
establish
a
more
reasonable
record
retention
time
for
these
provisions
than
the
current
requirement
to
keep
all
information
for
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
5­
2
the
life
of
the
facility.
In
addition,
as
with
the
BIF
records,
EPA
believes
the
threeyear
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
enable
regulators
to
effectively
monitor
industry
compliance
and
take
enforcement
actions,
as
needed.

EPA
notes
that
it
is
not
proposing
to
modify
the
time
retention
limit
for
records
that
contain
the
following
information:
(
i)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it,
(
ii)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste,
(
iii)
closure
estimates,
or
(
iv)
quantities
of
waste
placed
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
EPA
believes
that
this
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
after
closure
of
the
facility.


Hiring
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
in
Lieu
of
Licensed
Professional
Engineers.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
all
the
RCRA
certification
requirements
to
allow
a
person
who
is
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
to
do
the
certification,
in
lieu
of
a
licensed
professional
engineer.
The
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
Certification
must
be
accredited
by
the
Council
on
Engineering
and
Scientific
Specialties
Board,
which
also
accredits
Certified
Industrial
Hygienists,
Certified
Safety
Professionals,
and
Professional
Engineer
diplomas.
The
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
must
have
a
combination
of
education
and
work
experience,
pass
a
closed
book
examination,
maintain
his/
her
professional
education,
and
follow
a
code
of
ethics.
EPA
was
not
aware
of
this
discipline
when
most
of
the
regulations
that
require
a
licensed
engineer's
certification
were
written.
EPA
believes
that
all
the
certification
duties
that
an
independent,
qualified,
registered
professional
engineer
must
perform,
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
can
do.
Thus,
the
proposed
change
would
increase
the
number
of
professionals
that
waste
handlers
could
refer
to
obtain
a
certification,
without
having
any
adverse
effects
on
human
health
or
the
environment.


Option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
its
RCRA
regulations
to
indicate
that
waste
handlers
should
consider
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
This
guidance
provides
a
mechanism
for
consolidating
the
multiple
contingency
plans
that
facilities
have
to
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations.
The
use
of
a
single
plan
per
facility
will
eliminate
confusion
for
facilities
that
must
decide
which
of
the
contingency
plans
is
applicable
to
a
particular
emergency.
In
addition,
a
single
plan
will
provide
first
responders
with
a
mechanism
for
complying
with
multiple
regulatory
requirements.
Finally,
the
adoption
of
a
standard
plan
should
ease
the
burden
of
coordination
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
5­
3
with
local
emergency
planning
committees.
Thus,
the
proposed
regulatory
change
would
improve
the
protectiveness
of
facility
response
actions.


Replacement
of
RCRA
training
requirements
with
OSHA
standards.
EPA
is
proposing
to
rewrite
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
to
have
facilities
comply
with
the
OSHA
regulations
for
emergency
response
training.
EPA
believes
that
the
OSHA
requirements
are
more
thorough
than
the
current
RCRA
requirements,
and
therefore,
employees
will
be
better
able
to
take
protective
measures
(
e.
g,
to
prevent
releases
of
hazardous
waste
to
the
environment)
than
under
the
existing
RCRA
training.


Editorial
changes
in
rule
language.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
specified
regulatory
language
by
eliminating
obsolete
terms
and/
or
rewording
the
language
to
make
it
clearer.
EPA
believes
that
these
proposed
editorial
changes
would
clarify
the
regulations,
and
thus,
could
increase
regulatory
compliance
slightly.


Elimination
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate
certain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
RCRA
regulations
in
order
to
eliminate
submission
of
duplicative
information
and
unnecessary
burden
to
waste
handlers.
The
proposed
changes,
however,
would
not
modify
any
of
the
technical
requirements
that
facilities
must
take
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.


Decreased
inspection
frequency.
EPA
is
proposing
to
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
EPA
believes
that,
by
reducing
the
daily
inspection
requirement
to
a
weekly
frequency,
the
integrity
and
safety
of
hazardous
waste
tanks
would
not
be
compromised.
EPA
also
notes
that
hazardous
waste
storage
tank
systems
are
equipped
with
leak
detection
systems,
and
are
often
subject
to
routine
visual
inspection
by
employees,
even
in
the
absence
of
the
regulations.
Thus,
a
reduction
in
self­
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
would
have
little
negative
impact
on
human
health
or
the
environment.

In
addition
to
reduced
self­
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks,
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
States
to
adjust
the
self­
inspection
frequency,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
States
must
evaluate
the
compliance
record
of
a
facility,
consulting
databases
and
enforcement
information
sources.
Factors
such
as
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit
may
be
considered
in
granting
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
States
may
ask
for
a
short
annual
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
5­
4
performance
report
demonstrating
the
applicant's
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements.
States
may
also
include
a
qualification
that
facilities
must
revert
to
the
original
inspection
schedule
if
there
are
spills
or
releases.
EPA
believes
that,
if
the
factors
described
above
are
taken
into
account
when
extending
the
inspection
frequencies,
there
will
be
little
or
no
increase
in
the
likelihood
of
an
undetected
release,
and
thus,
little
negative
impact
on
human
health
or
the
environment.


Changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
certain
requirements
under
which
waste
handlers
must
keep
records
on
site
and
submit
these
same
records
to
EPA.
EPA
would
now
require
waste
handlers
only
to
keep
these
records
on
site.

Although
oversight
of
hazardous
waste
facilities
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis
is
important,
EPA
believes
that
many
of
the
various
notices
now
required
do
not
add
very
much
in
protection
and,
in
fact,
some
are
simply
redundant.
Thus,
EPA
believes
that
reporting
on
the
majority
of
the
day­
to­
day
functions
of
a
facility
does
not
need
to
occur.
Furthermore,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
Agency
is
cutting
back
the
government's
or
the
public's
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
at
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
in
the
facility's
operating
record).


Changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
certain
regulations
that
require
waste
handlers
to
submit
documents,
but
do
not
require
record
retention.
Under
the
proposal,
EPA
would
specify
that
waste
handlers
need
not
submit
the
information,
but
must
keep
it
on
site.
Thus,
facility
compliance
information
would
still
be
available
to
the
Agency
and
to
the
public
for
compliance
tracking.


Reduced
frequency
for
submittal
of
reports.
Under
the
proposal,
EPA
would
require
annual
submittal
of
certain
documents,
instead
of
semi­
annually
(
e.
g.,
corrective
action
reports
submitted
during
closure
of
permitted
facilities).
EPA
believes
that
annual
reports
would
contain
sufficient
data
to
inform
regulators
of
the
facilities'
regulatory
compliance
and
waste­
related
activities.
Hence,
an
increased
frequency
is
not
needed.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
5­
5
5.2
Summary
of
Environmental
Quality
Implications
of
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
EPA
has
considered
the
environmental
quality
implications
of
the
proposed
rule
and
concluded
that
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
will
have
minimal
impact
on
the
protectiveness
of
the
RCRA
regulations.
The
basic
reason
for
this
finding
is
that
the
current
provisions
of
the
RCRA
program
that
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
(
e.
g.,
requirements
for
proper
waste
management,
monitoring,
clean
up)
would
be
preserved
under
the
proposal.
The
proposal
would
eliminate
or
modify
paperwork
requirements
that
have
been
deemed
unnecessary
because
they
add
little
to
the
protectiveness
of
the
regulations.
Most
of
these
paperwork
requirements
entail
notices
and
reports
that
are
obscure,
inconsequential,
or
infrequently
submitted
to
or
used
by
regulators.
Note,
however,
that
the
proposal
would
not
curtail
the
right
of
regulatory
agencies
to
request
any
of
the
information
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate.
Waste
handlers
must
continue
to
keep
on­
site
records
of
their
waste
management
activities
and
make
them
available
to
regulators
when
requested.
As
such,
the
rule
would
not
limit
regulators'
or
the
public's
ability
to
learn
what
is
happening
at
a
facility.

In
addition,
the
proposal
may
enhance
waste
handler
compliance
with
some
of
the
regulations.
For
example,
the
proposal
would
give
waste
handlers
added
flexibility
in
how
they
can
comply
with
the
regulations,
e.
g.,
flexibility
to
hire
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
in
lieu
of
a
licensed
professional
engineer
to
obtain
required
certifications.
Such
added
flexibility
in
the
regulations
may
make
it
easier
for
waste
handlers
to
comply
with
them.
The
rule
also
would
streamline
certain
requirements
(
e.
g.,
contingency
planning,
emergency
training)
that
were
deemed
duplicative
with
other
existing
Federal
program
requirements.
Such
streamlining
may
assist
waste
handlers
in
complying
with
the
regulations.
In
particular,
EPA
would
defer
to
the
OSHA
emergency
training
requirements,
rather
than
requiring
the
emergency
training
currently
articulated
in
the
RCRA
regulations.
The
OSHA
requirements
are
more
thorough
than
the
existing
RCRA
emergency
training
requirements.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
1
6.
OTHER
POLICY
ISSUES
This
chapter
describes
EPA's
analysis
and
determinations
under
Federal
statutory
requirements
and
Executive
Orders
applicable
to
Federal
rules.
These
include:


Regulatory
Flexibility
Act;


Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act;


Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism;


Executive
Order
12989:
Environmental
Justice;


Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks;


Executive
Order
12630:
Regulatory
Takings;
and

Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments.

6.1
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
whenever
an
agency
is
required
to
publish
a
notice
of
rulemaking
for
any
proposed
or
final
rule,
it
must
prepare
and
make
available
for
public
comment
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
describes
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
SBREFA
further
requires
Federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

EPA
has
examined
the
proposed
rule's
potential
effects
on
small
entities
as
required
by
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
and
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
proposed
rule
is
specifically
intended
to
be
de­
regulatory
and
to
reduce,
not
increase,
the
paperwork
and
related
burdens
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program.
For
businesses
in
general,
including
all
small
businesses,
the
proposed
changes
would
reduce
the
labor
time
and
other
costs
of
preparing,
keeping
records
of,
and
submitting
reports
to
the
Agency.
The
proposed
rule,
for
example,
would
reduce
the
frequency
by
which
businesses
must
conduct
specified
recordkeeping
and
reporting
activities
(
e.
g.,
decreased
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly).
It
also
would
eliminate
certain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
altogether,
i.
e.,
in
cases
where
the
documents
are
little
used
by
the
public
or
regulators.
In
addition,
the
rule
would
eliminate
redundancies
between
the
RCRA
regulations
and
other
regulatory
programs
(
e.
g.,
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
for
personnel
training),
thereby
streamlining
facilities'
compliance
activities.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
2
Finally,
the
rule
would
provide
increased
flexibility
in
how
waste
handlers
may
comply
with
the
regulations
(
e.
g.,
case­
by­
case
variance
for
inspection
frequency).

6.2
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
P.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
Section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
Section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
Section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.

Moreover,
Section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
Section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
UMRA
excludes
from
the
definition
of
"
Federal
private
sector
mandate"
duties
that
arise
from
participation
in
a
voluntary
Federal
program
and
also
generally
excludes
from
the
definition
of
"
Federal
intergovernmental
mandate"
duties
that
arise
from
participation
in
a
voluntary
Federal
program.

Because
this
rule
is
less
stringent
than
the
Federal
program,
States
will
not
be
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
it.
Thus,
the
rule
would
not
impose
an
unfunded
mandate
on
States
or
any
other
level
of
government.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rule
would
provide
regulatory
relief
(
i.
e.,
hour
and
cost
burden
savings)
to
the
private
sector,
as
well
as
increased
flexibility
in
complying
with
RCRA
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Therefore,
the
proposed
rule
would
not
impose
any
unfunded
mandates
on
the
private
sector.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
3
6.3
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Federalism
implications."
The
Executive
Order
defines
"
policies
that
have
Federalism
implications"
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
Federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
Federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.

This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
because
it
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
States
or
any
other
level
of
government.
As
explained
above,
the
proposed
rule
eliminates
or
relaxes
many
of
the
paperwork
requirements
in
the
regulations.
Because
these
changes
are
equivalent
to
or
less
stringent
than
the
existing
Federal
program,
States
would
not
be
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
them.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
Section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

6.4
Executive
Order
12989:
Environmental
Justice
Under
Executive
Order
12898,
"
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,"
as
well
as
through
EPA's
April
1995,
"
Environmental
Justice
Strategy,
OSWER
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
Action
Agency
Report"
and
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Council,
EPA
has
undertaken
to
incorporate
environmental
justice
into
its
policies
and
programs.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns,
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
4
EPA
has
considered
the
impacts
of
this
proposed
rulemaking
on
low­
income
populations
and
minority
populations
and
concluded
that
any
risks
resulting
from
the
rule
would
be
very
small.
The
basic
reason
for
this
finding
is
that
the
current
features
of
the
RCRA
program
that
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
would
be
preserved
or
enhanced
under
the
proposal.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
proposal
would
eliminate
or
modify
paperwork
requirements
that
have
been
deemed
unnecessary
because
they
add
little
to
the
protectiveness
of
the
regulations.
Most
of
the
paperwork
requirements
entail
notices
and
reports
that
are
obscure,
inconsequential
or
infrequently
submitted.
In
addition,
the
proposal
would
give
facilities
added
flexibility
in
how
they
can
comply
with
the
regulations.
For
example,
the
proposal
would
let
facilities
choose
between
hiring
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
or
licensed
professional
engineer
to
perform
specified
activities
(
e.
g.,
certifications).
The
proposal
also
would
streamline
certain
requirements,
such
as
contingency
planning
and
personnel
training.
Such
flexibility
and
streamlining
will
make
it
easier
for
facilities
to
comply
with
these
regulations.

Despite
eliminating
a
number
of
paperwork
requirements,
EPA
would
leave
intact
the
basic
environmentally
protective
activities
that
facilities
are
currently
undertaking.
That
is,
EPA
would
require
facilities
to
continue
performing
their
technical
activities
(
e.
g.,
proper
waste
management,
monitoring,
clean
up),
but
require
them
to
submit
less
information
to
the
Agency
on
their
daily
activities.
The
proposal
also
would
not
curtail
the
right
of
regulatory
agencies
to
request
any
of
the
information
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate.
Facilities
must
continue
to
keep
on­
site
records
of
their
waste
management
activities
and
make
them
available
to
regulators
when
requested.
As
such,
the
rule
would
not
limit
regulators'
or
the
public's
ability
to
learn
what
is
happening
at
a
facility.
In
addition,
basic
information
about
a
facility
will
still
be
readily
accessible
to
the
public
via
the
Agency
website
and
websites
such
as
the
Right
to
Know
Network
website
(
www.
rtknet.
org).

6.5
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
i)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
ii)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children;
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866.
EPA
also
expects
the
rule
to
have
little
impact
on
children's
health.
The
proposal
would
eliminate
or
modify
paperwork
requirements
that
have
been
deemed
unnecessary
because
they
add
little
to
the
protectiveness
of
the
regulations.
In
particular,
EPA
proposes
eliminating
notices
and
reports
that
are
redundant,
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
5
inconsequential,
or
infrequently
sent
in.
Most
of
the
reports
EPA
proposes
cutting
or
modifying
are
reports
notifying
the
regulatory
agency
that
some
other
regulatory
requirement
was
performed.
The
proposal
would
leave
intact
the
basic
environmentally
protective
activities
that
facilities
are
currently
undertaking.

6.6
Executive
Order
12630:
Regulatory
Takings
Executive
Order
12630,
"
Government
Actions
and
Interference
with
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights"
(
March
15,
1988),
directs
Federal
agencies
to
consider
the
private
property
takings
implications
of
proposed
regulations.
Furthermore,
under
the
Fifth
Amendment
of
the
U.
S.
Constitution,
the
government
may
not
take
private
property
for
public
use
without
compensating
the
owner.
Though
the
exact
interpretation
of
this
takings
clause,
as
applied
to
regulatory
action,
is
still
subject
to
ongoing
debate,
a
framework
for
interpretation
has
been
established
by
legal
precedent
through
a
series
of
prominent
court
cases.
There
have
also
been
a
number
of
pieces
of
legislation
introduced
in
recent
U.
S.
Congressional
sessions
that
aim
to
strengthen
the
defined
framework
for
analysis
of
regulatory
takings.
The
main
goals
of
these
bills
include
(
i)
expansion
of
the
definition
of
a
regulatory
taking,
(
ii)
introduction
of
additional
administrative
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
issuing
regulations
likely
to
result
in
regulatory
takings,
and
(
iii)
expedition
of
access
to
Federal
courts
for
parties
seeking
claims
associated
with
regulatory
takings.

Within
the
current
context
of
mainstream
legal
precedent,
a
regulatory
taking
of
private
property
is
generally
deemed
to
result
if
a
court
determines
that
the
government
action
satisfies
any
of
the
following
criteria:
(
i)
results
in
a
physical
invasion
of
property,
(
ii)
denies
the
owner
all
reasonable
or
economically
viable
use
of
property,
(
iii)
interferes
with
reasonable
investment­
backed
expectations
for
property,
or
(
iv)
fails
to
establish
a
justifiable
connection
between
the
requirements
imposed
(
e.
g.,
permit
conditions)
and
the
underlying
purposes
of
the
regulation.

Even
if
a
regulatory
requirement
meets
any
or
all
of
the
designated
conditions
for
a
regulatory
taking,
courts
may
still
find
it
exempt
from
the
takings
clause
if
the
regulatory
action
is
meant
to
prevent
a
"
nuisance"
or
to
provide
other
benefits
to
the
public.
A
nuisance
is
defined
as
an
activity
or
condition
that
either
interferes
with
the
public
welfare
or
with
the
ability
of
another
private
citizen
to
enjoy
his
or
her
own
property.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
would
not
result
in
a
regulatory
taking.
Specifically,
the
proposed
rule
would
not
result
in
any
physical
invasion
of
property,
deny
an
owner
of
any
reasonable
or
economically
viable
uses
of
property,
or
interfere
with
reasonable
investment­
related
expectations
of
property.
In
addition,
EPA
has
fully
justified
the
connection
between
the
proposed
amendments
(
which
are
de­
regulatory
actions)
and
the
underlying
purposes
of
the
rule.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
6­
6
6.7
Executive
Order
13084:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
Tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
This
Executive
Order
requires
EPA
to
provide
to
OMB,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
Tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
that
permits
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
Tribal
governments
"
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities."

EPA
has
determined
that
Executive
Order
13084
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
has
issued
the
proposed
rule
in
response
to
the
mandate
of
the
PRA
for
a
40­
percent
reduction
of
the
total
burden
imposed
annually
by
the
Federal
regulations
as
of
September
30,
1995.
In
addition,
EPA
has
not
identified
any
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule
that
could
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments.
Finally,
the
proposed
rule
would
result
in
direct
compliance
cost
savings
to
the
regulated
community,
including
sites
owned/
operated
by
Tribal
governments.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
7­
1
7.
REFERENCES
Executive
Order
13045
of
April
21,
1997,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks.

Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism;
August
4,
1999.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Policy,
Planning,
and
Evaluation;
ICR
Handbook,
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995;
February
1999.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
959.10,
"
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements;"
March
27,
1998.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1189.06,
"
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions;"
January
16,
1998.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1189.07,
"
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
LDR
Phase
IV);"
January
30,
1998.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1361.08,
"
New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste,"
OMB
Control
No.
2050­
0073;
October
1999.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1442.17,
"
Land
Disposal
Restrictions;"
July
13,
2000.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1571.06,
"
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standard;"
September
29,
1999.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1572.05,
"
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types;"
July
14,
2000.
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
7­
2
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Solid
Waste;
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
1573.06,
"
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits;"
October
27,
1999.

U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
104th
Congress,
1st
Session;
Report
104­
99:
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995;
May
22,
1995.
Draft;
Revision
3
APPENDIX
A
SUMMARY
OF
REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
COVERED
IN
AFFECTED
ICRs
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
A­
1
Summary
of
Regulatory
Requirements
Covered
in
Affected
ICRs
ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Regulatory
Requirements
Covered
in
the
ICR
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
959.10
Groundwater
monitoring
standards
for
interim
status
facilities
and
for
permitted
facilities.
Both
sets
of
standards
establish
programs
for
protecting
groundwater
from
releases
of
hazardous
wastes
from
land
disposal
facilities
(
i.
e.,
facilities
with
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
land
treatment
units,

and/
or
landfills).
The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
264,

Subpart
F
for
permitted
facilities
and
in
40
CFR
Part
265,
Subpart
F
for
interim
status
facilities.

Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
1189.06
Standards
and
procedures
for
rulemaking
petitions,
solid
waste
and
boiler
variances,
hazardous
waste
exclusions,
and
hazardous
waste
listing
exemptions.
The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Parts
260
and
261.

Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
LDR
Phase
IV)
1189.07
Prohibitions
and
treatment
standards
for
toxicity
characteristic
metal
wastes
and
mineral
processing
wastes
(
i.
e.,
Phase
IV
hazardous
wastes).
The
ICR
also
covers
the
exclusion
of
wood
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
from
RCRA
jurisdiction.
The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
268.

New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
1361.08
Standards
applicable
to
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
(
BIFs)
burning
hazardous
wastes.

Specifically,
the
ICR
includes
general
facility
standards
applicable
to
BIFs
(
e.
g.,
40
CFR
Part
264
and
265,
Subparts
B,
D,
E,
and
H);
specific
unit
requirements
for
BIFs
(
i.
e.,
40
CFR
Part
266,

Subpart
H);
and
Part
B
permit
application
and
permit
modification
requirements
for
BIFs
(
i.
e,
40
CFR
Part
270).

Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442.17
Prohibitions,
minimum
treatment
standards,
and
procedures
applicable
to
generators
and
managers
of
hazardous
wastes
restricted
from
land
disposal,
including
waste
analysis
and
recordkeeping,

notifications/
certifications,
demonstration
for
alternative
treatment
technology,
demonstration
for
variance
from
a
treatment
standard,
recordkeeping
for
storage
prohibition.
The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
268.
Summary
of
Regulatory
Requirements
Covered
in
Affected
ICRs
(
continued)

ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Regulatory
Requirements
Covered
in
the
ICR
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
A­
2
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
1571.06
General
facility
standards
and
procedures
applicable
to
hazardous
waste
TSDFs,
including,
among
other
things,
development
of
contingency
plans;
training
of
personnel;
and
financial
responsibility.

The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265
(
e.
g,

Subparts
B,
D,
E,
and
H).

Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,

and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
1572.05
Standards
and
procedures
applicable
to
owners
and
operators
of
permitted
and
interim
status
TSDFs
that
use
at
least
one
of
the
following
units
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
hazardous
wastes:
container;

tank
system;
surface
impoundment;
waste
pile;
land
treatment;
landfill;
incinerator;
thermal
treatment
unit;
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
treatment
unit;
drip
pad;
miscellaneous
unit;

process
vent;
equipment
leak;
or
containment
building.
In
addition,
standards
and
procedures
applicable
to
the
management
of
specific
types
of
precious
metals
at
recycling
facilities.
The
regulations
implementing
these
requirements
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Parts
261,
Subpart
D;
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265
(
e.
g,
Subparts
I,
J,
K,
and
DD);
and
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
F.

Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,

and
Special
Permits
1573.06
Performance
standards
and
permitting
requirements
applicable
to
hazardous
waste
treatment,

storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs),
including:
demonstrations
and
exemptions
from
requirements,
contents
of
the
Part
B
application,
permit
modifications,
and
special
permits.
The
regulations
implementing
the
permitting
requirements
are
codified
at
40
CFR
Part
270.
Draft;
Revision
3
APPENDIX
B
CROSSWALK
OF
PROPOSED
REGULATORY
CHANGES
TO
THE
EXISTING
ICRS
AFFECTED
BY
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
B­
1
Crosswalk
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
the
Existing
ICRs
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Reduced
Record
Retention
Time
Hiring
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
in
lieu
of
licensed
professional
engineers
Option
to
Follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
Replacement
of
RCRA
Training
Requirements
with
OSHA
Standards
Editorial
Changes
in
Rule
Language
Elimination
of
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
Decreased
Inspection
Frequency
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Record
Retention
and
Submittal
of
Records
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Document
Submittal
Reduced
Frequency
for
Submittal
of
Reports
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
959.10


Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
1189.06
and
1189.07

New
and
Amended
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Burning
Hazardous
Waste
1361.08


Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442.17


General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
1571.06







Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
1572.05






Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
1573.06



Draft;
Revision
3
APPENDIX
C
PROPOSED
REGULATORY
CHANGES
TO
RCRA
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUIREMENTS
AND
EPA'S
ASSUMPTIONS
USED
IN
ESTIMATING
REVISED
WASTE
HANDLER
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
1
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
ICR
#
959.10
­
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
and
maintain
groundwater
monitoring
Modify
­
We
plan
to
introduce
flexibility
by
allowing
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents.
264.98(
c)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
records
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
the
notification
of
contamination
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
eliminating
this
requirement
(
but
not
proposing
this
in
the
rule).
The
owner/
operator
must
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
(
required
by
regulation)
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
establishes
a
compliance
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
264.98(
g)(
1)
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action,
if
required
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,040,000
to
$
1,039,952.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
&
(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
90,006
to
$
89,994.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations
Modify
­
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
will
be
made
on
a
caseby
case
basis.
264.99(
g)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
notifications
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
reduction
was
taken.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
2
Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
will
be
included
as
part
of
a
permit
modification
that
must
be
submitted
under
264.99(
h)(
2).
264.99(
h)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
69.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
93
to
$
0.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement,
since
Regional
Administrator
will
get
information
through
the
264.99(
i)(
3)
permit
modification.
264.99(
i)(
1),
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
231.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
135,009
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
onsite.
265.90(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
report
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
onsite
265.90(
d)(
3)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
22.50
to
11.25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
44,140
to
$
44,125.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
notification
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
reports,
this
information
will
be
noted
as
part
of
the
groundwater
quality
assessment
program.
265.93
(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
40
to
20.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
7,500
to
$
7,470.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
information
for
ground­
water
quality
assessment
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
information,
it
may
be
maintained
onsite.
265.93(
d)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
50
to
25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
40,000
to
$
39,970.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Develop
and
submit
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report.
265.93(
d)(
5)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
400,000
to
$
399,970.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
3
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
program
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
b)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
2,036
to
1,018.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,781,500
to
$
1,779,973.

ICR
#
1189.06
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
Variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
­
survey
industry­
wide
practices
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
Agency
does
not
need
this
information
to
grant
a
variance.
260.31(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
100
to
0.

Submit
report
estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
is
provided
to
the
regulatory
agency
at
a
later
date,
and
these
estimates
are
not
necessarily
accurate.
261.4(
f)(
9)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
16
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
10
to
$
0.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
4
ICR
#
1189.07
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
LDR
Phase
IV)

Exclusion
­
Submit
one­
time
notification
for
recycled
wood­
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood­
preserving
solutions
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
requirement
has
limited
use
for
regulators.
This
proposed
change
does
not
affect
the
protective
regulatory
requirements.
261.4(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
E)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
860
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
579
to
$
0.

Exclusion
­
Submit
notification
for
recycled
mineral
processing
secondary
materials
and
update,
if
necessary
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
notification
has
limited
use
for
regulators.
261.4(
a)(
17)(
v)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
93
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
177
to
$
0.

ICR
#
1361.07
­
Incinerators,
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Exclusion
­
Generator
submit
a
one­
time
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice
to
the
permitting
agency
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
subsequent
public
notice
requirements,
and
the
regulatory
requirements
for
burning,
blending,

generation,
sampling,
etc.
261.38(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
25.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
51
to
$
0.

Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Permitted)
­
Recordkeeping
Modify­
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
266.102(
e)(
10)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
­
Evaluation
of
data
and
making
determinations
Modify
­
evaluation
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
evaluation.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
5
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
­
Periodic
recertifications
of
compliance
Modify
­
extend
period
of
time
from
three
to
five
years,
which
is
sufficient
for
regulatory
purposes.
266.103(
d)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
recertifications
are
done
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
583
to
291.5.

Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
­
Recordkeeping
Modify
­
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
266.103(
k)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Direct
Transfer
Equipment
­
Assessment
of
equipment
Modify
­
assessment
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
266.111(
e)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
assessment.

ICR
#
1442.17
­
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
LDR
Generator
Requirements
­
Generator
waste
determination
Eliminate
­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
6)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
854,631
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
71,170,020
to
$
0.

LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements
­
Submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA
Modify
­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
b)(
6)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
1,451
to
725.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1161
to
$
0.

LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements
­
Submit
notification
of
claim
that
debris
is
excluded
from
definition
of
hazardous
waste
Modify
­
notification
remains
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
d)(
1)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­
Submit
one­
time
notification
Modify
­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.9(
a)
The
ICR
did
not
burden
this
requirement
individually
but
included
it
in
268.7(
a)(
1).
The
burden
reduction
is
included
in
the
elimination
of
268.7(
a)(
1).
This
requirement
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
6
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­
Submit
certification
Modify
­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.9(
d)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
581
to
290.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
232.20
to
$
0.

ICR
#
1571.06
­
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
Personnel
training
requirements
­
training
program
Eliminate
the
RCRA
requirements
and
have
facilities
follow
OSHA
standards.
264.16(
a)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
new
standards
will
not
change
the
paperwork
burden
found
in
264.16(
d).

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
job
title
Eliminate
­
the
job
title
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
264.16(
d)(
1)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
job
description
Eliminate
­
the
job
description
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
264.16(
d)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided
Eliminate
­
this
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
264.16(
d)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Contingency
Plan
­
Coordination
with
other
plans
Modify
­
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
"
One
Plan"
guidance,
which
will
eliminate
the
need
to
prepare
multiple
contingency
plans
for
Agency
requirements.
264.52(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
7
Operating
record
­
Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
Modify
amount
of
time
some
of
the
information
in
operating
record
has
to
be
kept
­
three
years
for
some
requirements,
and
for
the
life
of
the
facility
for
others.
264.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Standards
for
Solid
Waste
Management
Units
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.90(
a)(
2)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Certification
of
Closure
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
(
but
not
proposing)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
performing
this
certification.
264.115
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Certification
of
Completion
of
Post­
Closure
Care
Modify
­
certification
can
be
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.120
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
certification.

Purpose,
Scope,
and
Applicability
Clarify
language.
265.1(
b)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Personnel
Training
­
Emergency
response
Eliminate
and
have
facilities
follow
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
requirements.
265.16(
a)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
new
standards
will
not
change
the
paperwork
burden
found
in
265.16(
d).
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
This
requirement
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Personnel
Training
­
Record
job
titles
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
­
the
job
title
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
265.16(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
Training
­
Description
of
type
and
amount
of
training
each
employee
will
receive.

Eliminate
­
this
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
265.16(
d)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
8
Contingency
Plans
­
Coordination
with
other
plans
Modify
­
Facilities
should
follow
the
"
One
Plan"
guidance,
which
is
designed
to
eliminate
overlap
between
different
regulatory
requirements
for
contingency
plans.
265.52(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.

Emergency
Procedures
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
265.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement,
duplicating
the
information
required
by
265.56(
j).
265.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Reduction
taken
as
part
of
264.56(
i)
because
the
burden
was
not
separated.

Operating
Record
Keep
operating
record
for
facility
Modify
the
amount
of
time
some
records
have
to
be
kept
­
three
years
for
some
requirements,
and
for
the
life
of
the
facility
for
others.
265.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Certification
of
completion
of
Post­
Closure
care
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.120
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
certification.

ICR
#
1572.05
­
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
Modify
­
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually,
instead
of
semiannually
264.113(
e)(
5)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
report
is
now
annual.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
Allow
inspection
frequency
to
be
changed,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.174
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.
In
addition,
the
ICR
does
not
specifically
identify
this
requirement.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
9
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.191(
a),(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
the
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Assessment
of
new
tank
system
and
components
Modify
­
assessment
does
not
need
to
be
submitted,
and
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.192(
a)
See
Part
B
Permits
­
ICR
#
1573,
40
CFR
270.16.
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
burden
is
listed
under
270.16(
a),
which
still
requires
this
activity.

Inspection
of
new
tank
system
and
components
Modify
­
inspection
does
not
need
to
be
submitted,
and
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.192(
b)
See
Part
B
Permits
­
ICR
#
1573,
40
CFR
270.16.
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
burden
is
listed
under
270.16,

which
still
requires
this
activity.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Inspection
frequency
Change
frequency
to
weekly,
with
further
frequency
reductions
possible
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.195(
b)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
the
inspections
are
performed
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
65,032.5
to
32,516.25.
No
further
burden
reduction
taken
for
any
case
by
case
frequency
changes.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
submit
report
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Other
parts
of
264.196
establish
regulatory
requirements
to
ensure
that
the
spill
is
contained.
There
is
no
need
for
notification
of
EPA
to
occur.
264.196(
d)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
168
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
672
to
$
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
report
describing
release
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
As
long
as
release
is
cleaned
up
according
to
the
264.196
requirements,
the
report
is
of
little
importance.
264.196(
d)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
2,128
to
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Does
not
need
to
be
submitted;
only
maintained
on­
site.
264.196(
f)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit.
Hours
decreased
from
1
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
6
to
$
0.
Certifications
performed
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
are
not
associated
with
any
burden
reduction.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
10
Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR)
for
any
sumps
within
7
days
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
0.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
4.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
12
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Waste
Piles
­
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.251(
c)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
11
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
264.278(
g)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notice
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
that
other
sources
or
error
led
to
increases
below
treatment
zone
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
264.278(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Certification
of
closure.

EPA
is
taking
comment
on
(
but
not
proposing)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
doing
this
certification.
264.280(
b)
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
0.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
4.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
12
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Special
Requirements
for
Bulk
and
Containerized
Liquids
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.314(
a),
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2),
(
b)
&
(
f)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
12
Incinerators
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
F027
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
this
waste,
and
since
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.
264.343(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
written
plan,
as­
built
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
Modify
­
activities
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.571(
a),
(
b),
(
c)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
although
submittal
is
no
longer
required,
the
plan,
drawings,
and
assessment
must
still
be
obtained
and
now
maintained
on
site.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Maintain
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad
that
has
been
reviewed
by
certified
engineers
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.573(
a)(
4)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Evaluate
drip
pads
Modify
­
evaluation
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.573(
g)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
evaluation
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i)­(
iii)
are
taken.
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
EPA
makes
determination
about
removal
of
pad
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
are
made.
264.573(
m)(
2)
This
burden
is
for
Agency
activities
only;
therefore,
there
is
no
burden
reduction
for
respondents.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
and
certify
completion
of
repairs
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
a
certification
is
obtained.
264.573(
m)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
and
notification
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
13
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Inspections
Modify
­
inspection
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.574(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
inspection
must
still
be
done.

Process
Vents
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region
Eliminate
need
to
submit
report­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
detailed
recordkeeping
required
by
264.1035.
264.1036
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
1,056
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
192
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
performance
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
this
option
is
chosen.
264.1061(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
564
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
846
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
there
are
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
the
regular
standards
are
going
to
be
followed.
264.1061(
d)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
6
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
reporting
requirement
as
long
as
standards
are
followed.
264.1062(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
140
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
210
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
with
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
264.1064
recordkeeping
requirements
will
provide
adequate
information.
264.1065
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
7,818.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
2,469
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Applicability
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
14
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
requirements
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
certification
must
still
be
obtained.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
repair
of
containment
building
must
occur
anyway.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
6.25
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
30
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
EPA
does
not
get
involved
in
similar
decisions
about
whether
other
parts
of
a
facility
need
to
be
removed
from
service.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
3.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
15
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Inspection
frequency
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.1101(
c)(
4)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
Modify
­
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually,
instead
of
semiannually
265.113(
e)(
5)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
report
is
now
annual.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
Modify­
allow
regulators
to
modify
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
wellperforming
facilities
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
265.174
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.
In
addition,
the
ICR
does
not
specifically
identify
this
requirement.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
15
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
assessment
of
structural
integrity
and
acceptability
for
storing
and
treating
waste
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.192(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
assessment
of
tank
installation
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.192
(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containment
and
detection
of
releases
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.193(
a),(
a)(
1)­(
5)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Leak
detection
system
Modify
­
Eliminate
need
for
demonstrations.
The
owner
or
operator
can
make
the
determination
as
to
what
is
the
earliest
practicable
time.
265.193(
e)(
3)(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
to
obtain
variance.
Owner
or
operator
can
implement
alternate
design
and
operating
practices
as
long
as
they
follow
the
requirements
of
this
section.
265.193(
g)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Inspection
frequency
Change
frequency
to
weekly.
265.195(
a)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
the
inspections
are
performed
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
9,353
to
4,676.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
Eliminate
­
existing
requirements
for
cleanup
are
adequately
protective;

notification
is
unnecessary.
265.196(
d)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
24
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
96
to
$
0.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
16
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
report
describing
releases
Eliminate
­
the
required
certification
is
adequate.
265.196(
d)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
304
to
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Does
not
need
to
be
submitted;
only
maintained
on­
site.
265.196(
f)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit.
Hours
decreased
from
8
to
0.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Design
and
operating
requirements
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.221(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA
Eliminate
­
Response
Action
Plans
for
other
kinds
of
treatment
units
are
not
submitted
to
EPA.
It
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.223(
a)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit
the
plan.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
action
leakage
rate
for
any
sumps
within
7
days
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
facility
still
has
to
address
the
leakage.
265.223(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
still
has
to
address
the
leakage.
265.223(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
information
about
the
leak
will
be
onsite.
265.223(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
17
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
other
treatment
units
do
not
have
to
submit
this
plan.
265.259(
a)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing,
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.259(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.259(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.259(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Treatment
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
notification
for
food­
chain
crops
at
land
treatment
facility
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
other
regulatory
requirements
in
265.276
are
followed.
265.276(
a)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Installation
of
landfill
liners
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.301(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
(
RAP)
to
EPA
Modify
­
Eliminate
requirement
to
submit
plan.
Developing
a
plan,
keeping
it
onsite,
and
implementing
it
when
necessary
is
sufficient.
265.303(
a)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit
plan.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
18
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.303(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Plan
is
followed.
265.303(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
remediation
takes
place.
265.303(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.314(
a),
(
a)(
1),

(
a)(
2),
(
b)
and
(
g)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Assessment
of
Drip
pad,
Submit
written
plan,

asbuilt
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.441(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Assessment
of
Drip
Pad
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.443(
a)(
4)(
ii),
(
g)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
takes
place.
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv),
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
19
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
and
certify
completion
of
repairs
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
are
made.
265.443(
m)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
and
notification
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Inspections
Modify
­
inspection
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.444(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
inspection
must
still
be
done.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
other
regulatory
requirements
in
265.1061
are
followed.
265.1061(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
44
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
66
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Owners
or
operators
can
decide
which
standard
to
meet
without
notifying
the
Agency.
265.1061(
d)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Owners
or
operators
may
use
alternative
work
practice
without
notifying
the
Agency.
265.1062(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
10
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
15
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
intent
to
be
bound
by
the
regulations
earlier
than
as
specified
in
section
265.1100
Eliminate
­
an
obsolete
requirement.
265.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
design
requirements
Modify
­
certification
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
certification
must
still
be
obtained.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
20
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
3.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
takes
place.
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
2.25
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
­
Interim
Status
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
This
determination
will
be
made
by
regulatory
authorities
based
on
past
performance
of
the
facility.
265.1101(
c)(
4)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

ICR
#
1573.06
­
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
Containment
and
detection
of
releases
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.193(
a),(
a)(
1)­(
5)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
for
demonstrations.
The
owner
or
operator
can
make
the
determination
as
to
what
is
the
earliest
practical
time.
264.193(
c)(
3),
(
c)(
4),

(
e)(
3)(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
65
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
27
to
$
0.

Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
to
obtain
variance.
Owner
or
operator
can
implement
alternate
design
and
operating
practices
as
long
as
they
follow
the
requirements
of
this
section.
264.193(
g)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
57
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Tank
Systems
­
Submit
written
assessment
of
structural
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
270.16(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
(
continued)

Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
Draft;
Revision
3
Page
C­
21
Surface
Impoundments
­
Assessment
of
structural
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
270.17(
d)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

ICR
Not
Available
Storage
of
Solid
Waste
Military
Munitions
­
Notification
of
loss
or
theft
Eliminate
additional
written
submission.
266.205(
a)(
1)(
v)
Burden
hour
reduction
is
negligible
and
not
quantified
in
this
analysis.
Draft;
Revision
3
APPENDIX
D
MODIFIED
ICR
EXHIBITS
Draft;
Revision
3
FACILITY
GROUND­
WATER
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
(
ICR
NUMBER
959.10)
Draft;
Revision
3
IDENTIFICATION,
LISTING,
AND
RULEMAKING
PETITIONS
(
ICRS
NUMBER
1189.06
AND
1189.07)
Draft;
Revision
3
NEW
AND
AMENDED
RCRA
REPORTING
AND
RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
BOILERS
AND
INDUSTRIAL
FURNACES
BURNING
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
(
ICR
NUMBER
1361.08)
Draft;
Revision
3
LAND
DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
(
ICR
NUMBER
1442.17)
Draft;
Revision
3
GENERAL
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
FACILITY
STANDARDS
(
ICR
NUMBER
1571.06)
Draft;
Revision
3
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
SPECIFIC
UNIT
REQUIREMENTS,
AND
SPECIAL
WASTE
PROCESS
AND
TYPES
(
ICR
NUMBER
1572.05)
Draft;
Revision
3
PART
B
PERMIT
APPLICATION,
PERMIT
MODIFICATIONS,
AND
SPECIAL
PERMITS
(
ICR
NUMBER
1573.06)
