SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
FOR
EPA
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
1189.17
REVISION
OF
RCRA
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
EXCLUSIONS
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MIXTURES
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Solid
Waste
24
August
2005
Prepared
By:
Prior
drafts
of
this
document
were
prepared
for
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
by
ICF
Consulting
Inc
(
Fairfax,
Virginia),
dated
29
July
2002,
26
Sept
2002
and
25
May
2005.
Mark
Eads,
OSW
Economist,
prepared
this
August
2005
version.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
BURDEN
STATEMENT
1(
a)
Summary
of
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1(
b)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1(
c)
Public
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
a)
Introduction
to
the
Paperwork
Requirements
Covered
by
this
ICR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)
Summary
of
the
Paperwork
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
3.
NEED
FOR
&
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
b)
Practical
Utility
and
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
4.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
&
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
a)
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
b)
Public
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
d)
Effects
of
less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
5.
RESPONDENTS
&
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
5(
a)
Respondent
SIC/
NAICS
Industry
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
5(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
6.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
&

INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
6(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
6(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
6(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
6(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
7.
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
HOURS
&
COSTS
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
7(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Hours
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
7(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
7(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Hour
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
7(
d)
Estimating
the
Annual
Respondent
Universe
And
Total
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
EXHIBITS
1
TO
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3
1.
BURDEN
STATEMENT
1(
a)
Summary
of
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Estimated
in
this
Document
°
Respondent
Tally:
Exhibit
2
estimates
3­
year
average
annualized
respondent
(
i.
e.,
industrial
facility)
paperwork
burden
for
the
final
rule
to
be
45,898
hours
per
year
and
$
8,557,036
per
year.

Burden
consists
of
five
paperwork
activities:
reading
the
rule,
wastewater
sampling
plans,
direct
monitoring
of
wastewaters,
updating
sampling
plans,
and
recordkeeping.

Exhibit
6
(
items
8
to
11)
estimates
the
final
rule
affects
a
net
increase
in
respondent
burden
under
four
existing
ICRs
(
i.
e.,
ICR
numbers
801,
976,
1189.09,
and
1442)
of
432
hours
per
year
and
$
45,018
per
year.

°
Agency
Tally:
Exhibit
4
estimates
3­
year
average
annualized
burden
to
the
Agency
(
i.
e.,
to
RCRAauthorized
state
government
agencies)
under
the
final
rule
to
be
366
hours
per
year
and
$
13,831
per
year,
for
two
burden
items
(
reviewing
initial
and
updated
sampling
plans).

Because
some
of
the
rule's
paperwork
requirements
are
one­
time
only
(
e.
g.,
initial
development
and
submission
of
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan),
rather
than
annually­
recurring
burden,
the
actual
annual
burden
hours
and
burden
costs
after
the
first­
year
in
which
the
rule
takes
effect,
will
be
lower
than
the
3­
year
average
annualized
values
summarized
above.

Consequently,
the
average
annualized
burden
after
3­
year
renewal
of
this
ICR
should
be
significantly
less
than
the
burden
in
this
new
ICR.

1(
b)
Reasons
for
Change
In
Burden
EPA
believes
the
paperwork
requirements
are
needed
to
ensure
safe
and
compliant
management
of
exempted
waste.

Because
the
exemptions
are
self­
implementing,
EPA
believes
that
submittal
of
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
(
SAP)
is
necessary
to
notify
the
regulatory
agency
of
the
exemption
claim
and
the
claimant's
use
of
direct
monitoring.
The
plan
also
ensures
that
the
facility's
employees
and
consultants
follow
appropriate
procedures
for
measuring
chemical
levels
in
the
wastewater.

On
both
a
per­
facility
and
on
an
annual
aggregate
basis
over
all
affected
facilities
and
industries,
the
paperwork
burden
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
represent
a
relatively
small
incremental
burden
and
cost,
in
comparison
to
the
potential
annual
savings
to
claimants
from
reduced
waste
management
costs
under
the
rule.

The
actual
number
of
facilities
that
may
claim
an
exemption
depends
upon
site­
specific
factors
(
e.
g.,
annual
spent
solvent
waste
quantities
generated;
current
waste
management
practices;
cost
trade­
offs
of
using
direct
monitoring
vs.
mass
balance).
From
this
perspective,
EPA
expects
that
some
facilities
may
find
it
beneficial
to
claim
the
exemption,
whereas
some
facilities
may
not
claim
the
exemption
because
they
do
not
expect
to
achieve
a
net
cost
savings
outcome,
relative
to
their
current
spent
solvent
annual
quantities
generated
and/
or
management
practice.
Refer
to
EPA's
20
July
2005
Economics
Background
Document
for
this
final
rule
for
additional
information
on
EPA's
estimated
count
of
potentially
eligible
facilities,
their
associated
spent
solvent
annual
quantities
and
management,
and
EPA's
estimate
of
potential
spent
solvent
management
cost
savings
under
the
exemptions.

1(
c)
Public
Burden
Statement
°
Reporting
Burden:
Estimated
3­
year
average
annualized
30.8
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
per­
facility),
based
on
items
2+
4+
8+
9+
10
in
Exhibit
1
(
Column
1E)
and
Exhibit
7
(
Column
7A),
which
includes
time
for
preparing
and
submitting
the
site­
specific
sampling
and
analysis
plan
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G),
as
amended.
Respondents
who
need
to
update
the
site­
specific
sampling
plan
will
incur
an
additional
reporting
burden
of
one­
half
hour.

°
Recordkeeping
Burden:
Estimated
3­
year
average
annualized
24.2
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
per­
facility),
based
4
1
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
resources
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
on
items
1+
3+
5+
11
in
Exhibit
1(
Column
1E)
and
Exhibit
7
(
Column
7A),
which
includes
time
for
reading
the
rule
and
conducting
direct
monitoring
or
mass
balance
monitoring.

2.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Introduction
to
The
Paperwork
Requirements
Covered
by
This
ICR
Section
3001
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976
(
RCRA),
as
amended,
directs
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
promulgate
regulations
identifying
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
and
listing
particular
hazardous
wastes.
Under
this
authority,
EPA
established
40
CFR
Part
261,
which
identifies
four
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
in
Subpart
C
and
includes
four
lists
of
hazardous
wastes
in
Subpart
D.
The
part
also
sets
forth
regulatory
definitions,
exclusions,
exemptions,
and
special
requirements.
In
particular,
in
1981
EPA
created
exclusions
from
the
RCRA
definition
of
hazardous
waste
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)­(
G)
for
certain
mixtures
of
solid
waste
and
listed
hazardous
waste,
provided
specified
criteria
are
met.

On
April
8,
2003
(
68
FR
17234),
EPA
proposed
revisions
to
the
headworks
exclusion
in
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv).

Many
of
the
proposed
changes
in
the
08
April
2003
proposed
rule
were
an
outgrowth
of
a
1999
request
to
EPA
by
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
now
called
the
American
Chemical
Council),
to
revise
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
mixture
and
derived­
from
rule
exemptions
(
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iii)
and
261.3(
c)(
2)(
i),
respectively),
and
the
public
comments
that
EPA
received
in
response
to
the
discussion
of
these
suggested
revisions
in
EPA's
Nov
1999
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
proposal
(
64
FR
63382).

In
2005
EPA
finalized
revisions
to
the
headworks
exclusion
 
which
is
a
voluntary
exclusion
 
which
includes
the
following
five
voluntary
revisions:

1.
Two
solvents:
Add
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
to
the
existing
list
of
solvents
that
are
eligible
for
the
exemptions
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B).
2.
Scrubber
waters:
Include
"
scrubber
waters"
derived
from
the
combustion
of
spent
solvents
and
sent
to
a
facility's
wastewater
treatment
system,
to
the
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B).

3.
Direct
monitoring:
Change
the
way
compliance
with
certain
of
the
exemptions
at
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)
is
determined,
by
adding
to
the
current
"
mass­
balance"
computation
requirements
for
determining
solvent
concentration
in
wastewater
system
"
headworks",
the
option
of
directly
measuring
solvent
chemical
concentration
levels
at
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
4.
De
minimis
wastes:
Make
F­
and
K­
listed
hazardous
wastes
(
in
addition
to
current
P­
and
U­
listed
discarded
commercial
chemical
products)
eligible
for
the
de
minimis
exemption
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
D).

5.
De
minimis
industries:
Add
non­
manufacturing
facilities
to
those
that
qualify
for
the
de
minimis
exemption
if
certain
conditions
are
met,
in
addition
to
current
manufacturing
facilities.

This
ICR
estimates
the
incremental
annualized
burden1
associated
with
the
information
collection
requirements
for
these
5
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
final
rule
revisions
to
the
RCRA
headworks
exemption.
The
following
sections
of
this
document
discuss
the
paperwork
requirements
in
regard
to
the
information
collected
(
e.
g.,
use/
need
of
information,
collection
frequency),
and
the
associated
respondent
and
Agency
reporting
and
recordkeeping
activities.
The
final
Section
7
provides
an
estimate
of
the
incremental
annual
burden
hour
and
cost
to
respondents
and
to
the
Agency
under
these
new
final
rule
requirements.

2(
b)
Summary
of
the
Paperwork
Requirements
In
themselves,
the
first
two
revisions
listed
above
(
i.
e.,
adding
two
solvents
and
scrubber
waters
to
the
exclusions)
do
not
have
intrinsic
paperwork
requirements;
the
paperwork
requirements
for
affected
entities
are
included
in
the
third
revision
listed
above
(
i.
e.,
direct
monitoring).
The
other
two
de
minimis
revisions
have
paperwork
requirements,
so
this
ICR
only
estimates
paperwork
requirements
for
three
of
the
five
revisions.

°
Direct
Monitoring:
Sampling
and
Analysis
Plan
Under
the
revised
headworks
exclusion,
facilities
may
choose
to
comply
with
certain
of
the
exemptions
at
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)
by
directly
measuring
solvent
chemical
levels
at
the
headworks
of
the
wastewater
treatment
system.
Facilities
choosing
direct
monitoring
must
develop
and
follow
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
meets
the
weekly
average
standards
set
for
the
appropriate
wastes.
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.
Facilities
must
submit
a
copy
of
the
sampling
plan
to
the
appropriate
regulatory
authority.
Prior
to
commencement
of
direct
monitoring,
the
facility
must
confirm
that
the
plan
has
been
received
by
the
overseeing
agency
(
e.
g.,
by
certified
mail
return
receipt).
Upon
confirmation
that
the
plan
has
been
delivered
successfully,
the
facility
will
be
allowed
to
commence
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
compliance.

Facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
their
sampling
plan
on­
site.
EPA
is
not
requiring
any
other
formal
notification
to
the
agency,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
its
monitoring.

°
Facilities
Claiming
Expanded
de
minimis
Exemption
Additionally,
all
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
and
all
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
any
listed
hazardous
waste,
must
include
in
their
CWA
permit
application
(
or
for
indirect
dischargers
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
the
submission
to
their
pretreatment
control
authority)
a
list
of
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste.
In
addition,

facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
on
site
to
demonstrate
to
inspectors
that
the
permit
writer
or
control
authority
was
notified
of
the
possible
de
minimis
releases
of
hazardous
constituents.
6
2
To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
EPA's
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
RCRA
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
RCRA
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
0270.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
EDOCKET
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028
and
OMB
control
number
2050­
0053
in
any
correspondence.
3.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
3(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
Under
Section
3001
of
RCRA,
Congress
directed
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
identifying
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
and
listing
particular
hazardous
wastes.
Congress
provided
that
EPA
may
need
to
revise
these
regulations
from
time
to
time.
In
addition,
RCRA
Sections
2002
and
3007
provide
authority
to
EPA
to
require
industry
to
submit
and/
or
keep
records
of
documentation,
as
appropriate.
In
particular,
RCRA
Section
2002
provides
that,
in
carrying
out
the
Act,
EPA
is
authorized
to
prescribe,
in
consultation
with
Federal,
State,
and
regional
authorities,
such
regulations
(
including
information
collection
requirements)
as
are
necessary
to
carry
out
its
functions
under
the
Act.
EPA
believes
that
the
paperwork
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
protective
waste
management.
2
Because
the
exemptions
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)
are
self­
implementing
(
i.
e.,
no
agency
approval
required),
the
Agency
has
determined
that
it
is
necessary
for
claimants
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
to
submit
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency.
The
plan
will
notify
the
agency
of
the
exemption
claim
and
give
it
an
opportunity
to
review
the
proposed
sampling
approach
(
e.
g.,
frequency,
chemicals
to
be
monitored).
The
plan
is
also
needed
to
ensure
that
facilities
follow
appropriate
procedures
in
measuring
the
levels
of
chemicals
in
their
wastewater.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected.

The
Agency
has
also
determined
that
all
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
and
all
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
any
listed
hazardous
waste,
must
include
in
their
CWA
permit
application
(
or
for
indirect
dischargers
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
the
submission
to
their
pretreatment
control
authority)
a
list
of
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste.
In
addition,
facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
on
site
to
demonstrate
to
inspectors
that
the
permit
writer
or
control
authority
was
notified
of
the
possible
de
minimis
releases
of
hazardous
constituents.

3(
b)
Practical
Utility
and
Users
of
the
Data
Under
the
final
rule,
claimants
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
must
prepare
and
submit
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency.
Prior
to
commencement
of
direct
monitoring,
the
facility
must
confirm
that
the
plan
has
been
received
by
the
overseeing
agency
(
e.
g.,
by
certified
mail
return
receipt).
EPA
is
not
requiring
any
other
formal
notification,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
monitoring.
The
Agency
will
review
the
plan
to
ensure
that
claimants
are
following
acceptable
procedures
(
e.
g.,
monitoring
frequency)
for
measuring
the
chemical
levels
in
their
wastewater
and
that
their
claims
are
therefore
valid.
EPA
is
not
requiring
the
overseeing
agency
to
issue
a
formal
approval
of
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan.
The
Director,
however,
may
reject
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
if
he/
she
finds
that
(
1)
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
fails
to
include
the
required
information,
or
(
2)
the
plan
parameters
do
not
7
enable
the
facility
to
calculate
the
weekly
average
concentration
of
these
chemicals
accurately.
If
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
rejected
or
if
the
Director
finds
that
the
facility
is
not
following
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan,
the
facility
must
no
longer
use
the
direct
monitoring
option
until
such
time
as
the
bases
for
rejection
are
corrected.

Additionally,
all
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
and
all
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
any
listed
hazardous
waste,
must
include
in
their
CWA
permit
application
(
or
for
indirect
dischargers
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
the
submission
to
their
pretreatment
control
authority)
a
list
of
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste.
Permit
writers
and
POTW
authorities
need
to
know
the
constituents
these
facilities
may
be
discharging,
so
they
can
act
accordingly
to
protect
surface
waters
and
maintain
municipal
wastewater
treatment
systems.
In
addition,
facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
on
site
to
demonstrate
to
inspectors
that
the
permit
writer
or
control
authority
was
notified
of
the
possible
de
minimis
releases
of
hazardous
constituents.
8
3
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Economics
Background
Document
:
Estimate
of
National
Economic
Impact
for
USEPA's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
1981
"
Headworks
Exemption"
for
Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment
Systems,
20
July
2005,
243
pages.
Available
to
the
public
from
the
EPA
EDOCKET
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
under
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2002­
0028.
4.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
4(
a)
Nonduplication
None
of
the
information
required
by
the
final
rule
is
duplicative
with
any
information
required
by
the
existing
RCRA
regulations.

4(
b)
Public
Notice
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
this
ICR
was
made
available
to
the
public
for
comment
through
a
Federal
Register
notice
(
68
FR
17234,
April
8,
2003).
The
public
had
60
days
to
provide
comments.
A
number
of
comments
were
received
in
response
to
that
notice
regarding
the
burden
to
facilities
potentially
affected
by
the
rule.
These
comments
were
considered
by
the
Agency
but
did
not
require
any
adjustment
to
the
burden
calculations
in
this
ICR.
Comments
are
summarized
below.

Many
supporters
of
the
direct
monitoring
option
commented
that
it
was
too
burdensome
to
submit
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
and
to
obtain
confirmation
of
its
receipt
before
direct
monitoring
can
begin.
The
Agency
disagrees
that
submittal
of
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
is
overly
burdensome
because
the
notification
is
a
one­
time
event,
unless
there
is
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations.

A
number
of
commenters
suggested
that
the
Agency
increase
the
length
of
the
compliance
period
from
weekly
to
monthly
in
order
to
reduce
the
costs
associated
with
direct
monitoring.
The
Agency
stated
in
the
proposed
rule
that
it
would
not
respond
to
comments
addressing
such
provisions.
Many
commenters
also
objected
to
the
Agency's
proposal
that
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
or
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
wastes
listed
in
§
§
261.31
through
261.33
include
limits
for
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
the
listed
wastes
in
the
CWA
permit.
The
rationale
for
requiring
a
facility's
CWA
permit
to
contain
limits
for
Appendix
VII
and
LDR
constituents
associated
with
the
specific
wastes
was
due
to
the
de
minimis
eligibility
being
expanded
to
include
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes.
At
the
time
of
the
proposal,
the
Agency
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
releases
of
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes
would
be
minimized
so
that
these
wastes
would
not
have
a
significant
effect
upon
wastewater
treatment
systems,
the
quality
of
effluent
discharges,
solid
wastes
generated,
occupational
safety
and
health,
and
human
health
and
the
environment
(
67
FR
17244,
April
8,
2003).
However,
the
Agency
recognizes
that
it
usually
is
not
the
permit
writer's
practice
to
set
specific
permit
limits
for
every
constituent
that
may
be
present
in
a
facility's
effluent.
Therefore,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
it
is
sufficiently
protective
for
direct
discharging
facilities
to
list
all
expected
Appendix
VII
and
LDR
constituents
in
their
CWA
permit
application
(
or
for
indirect
dischargers
to
POTWs,
in
their
submission
to
their
control
authority)
and
to
rely
on
the
permit
writer's
(
or
control
authority's)
judgment
to
determine
if
specific
permit
limits
are
needed.

4(
c)
Consultations
The
Agency
did
not
conduct
consultations
with
the
public
in
completing
this
ICR
because
the
Agency
used
the
estimates
on
the
number
of
potentially
affected
entities
and
the
burden
associated
with
direct
monitoring
provided
in
EPA's
2005
Economics
Background
Document3
(
EBD)
supporting
the
final
rule.
In
the
EBD,
the
Agency's
primary
source
of
data
for
9
4
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
1997
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
html/
brs/
brs_
query.
html
5
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Unit
Cost
Compendium,
Appendix
N,
30
September
2000.
estimating
affected
entities
was
the
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste's
1997
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report.
4
In
estimating
the
hour
and
cost
burden
associated
with
direct
monitoring,
the
Agency
relied
on
the
information
provided
in
a
public
comment
to
the
proposed
rule
as
well
as
the
information
provided
in
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste's
30
September
2000
Unit
Cost
Compendium.
5
4(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Claimants
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
must
prepare
and
submit
a
site­
specific
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency
prior
to
commencement
of
monitoring.
EPA
believes
this
one­
time
submittal
is
needed
to
notify
the
agency
of
the
exemption
claim
and
give
it
an
opportunity
to
review
the
proposed
sampling
approach.
EPA
is
not
requiring
any
other
formal
notification
to
the
regulatory
agency,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
monitoring
which
then
renders
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
inaccurate.

The
paperwork
requirements
for
facilities
claiming
the
expanded
de
minimis
exemption
is
also
a
one­
time
notification.
Facilities
would
need
to
update
and
resubmit
their
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
only
if
there
was
a
change
in
the
wastes
they
manage
and,
therefore,
a
change
in
the
constituents
that
may
be
discharged.

No
other
collection
frequency
is
specified
in
the
rule.

4(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
adheres
to
the
guidelines
stated
in
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
implementing
regulations,
EPA's
Information
Collection
Review
Handbook,
and
other
applicable
OMB
guidance.

4(
f)
Confidentiality
Section
3007(
b)
of
RCRA
and
40
CFR
Part
2,
Subpart
B,
which
defines
EPA's
general
policy
on
public
disclosure
of
information,
contain
provisions
for
confidentiality.
The
Agency,
however,
does
not
anticipate
that
businesses
will
assert
a
claim
of
confidentiality
covering
all
or
part
of
the
rule.
If
such
a
claim
were
asserted,
EPA
must
and
will
treat
the
information
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
cited
above.
EPA
also
will
assure
that
this
information
collection
complies
with
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
and
OMB
Circular
108.

4(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
questions
of
a
sensitive
nature
are
included
in
the
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
the
rule.
10
5.
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
5(
a)
Respondent
SIC/
NAICS
Industry
Codes
Table
1
below
summarizes
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
and
corresponding
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
associated
with
the
economic
subsectors
most
likely
affected
by
the
information
collection
requirements
covered
under
this
ICR
are
described
below.

Table
1:

List
of
Economic
Subsectors
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Expansion
in
Scope
of
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
"
Headworks
Exemptions"
for
Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment
Systems
Item
Economic
Subsector
Description
SIC
code
NAICS
code
1
02
112
Agricultural
production
­
livestock
2
20
311
Food
&
kindred
products
3
22
313
Textile
mill
products
4
24
321
Lumber
&
wood
products
5
25
337
Furniture
&
fixtures
6
26
322
Paper
&
allied
products
7
28
325
Chemicals
&
allied
products
8
29
324
Petroleum
&
coal
products
9
30
326
Rubber
&
miscellaneous
plastics
products
10
31
316
Leather
&
leather
products
11
32
327
Stove,
clay,
glass
&
concrete
products
12
33
331
Primary
metal
industries
13
34
332
Fabricated
metal
products
14
35
333
Industrial
machinery
&
equipment
15
36
334,
335
Electrical
&
electronic
equipment
16
37
336
Transportation
equipment
17
38
3333,
3345
Instruments
&
related
products
18
42
493
Motor
freight
transportation
&
warehousing
19
4581
48819,
56172
Airports,
flying
fields,
&
airport
terminal
services
20
4789
488999
Transportation
services
nec
21
49
221
Electric,
gas,
&
sanitary
services
22
50
421
Wholesale
trade
­
durable
goods
23
51
422
Wholesale
trade
­
nondurable
goods
24
5999
453998
Miscellaneous
retail
25
721
8123
Dry­
cleaning
&
industrial
laundry
services
26
73
514,
532,
541,
561
Business
services
27
80
621,
622,
623
Health
services
28
87
712
Engineering
&
management
services
29
8999
54162
Miscellaneous
services
30
91
921
Executive,
legislative
&
general
government
31
95
924,
925
Environmental
quality
&
housing
32
97
928
National
security
&
international
affairs
11
Notes
on
Table
1
above:
(
f)
This
list
is
based
upon
industry
codes
reported
to
the
EPA
RCRA
hazardous
waste
1997
RCRA
Biennial
Reporting
System
database
by
F002/
F005
aqueous
spent
solvent
generators
which
manage
such
wastes
in
wastewater
treatment
systems,
supplemented
by
industry
codes
which
have
EPA
Clean
Water
Act
Categorical
Pretreatment
Standards
for
indirect
discharge
of
industrial
wastewaters
to
POTWs
(
as
of
July
2002).
(
g)
The
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
matched
1987
2­
digit
level
SIC
codes
to
1997
NAICS
codes
using
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
website:
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
naics/
nsic2ndx.
htm#
S0.

5(
b)
Information
Requested
°
Direct
Monitoring:
Sampling
and
Analysis
Plan
Under
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv),
facilities
choosing
direct
monitoring
must
develop
and
follow
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
meets
the
weekly
average
standards
set
for
the
appropriate
wastes.
The
sampling
and
analysis
plan
must
include:

(
iv)
Data
Items:
°
The
wastewater
monitoring
point
location
(
i.
e.,
headworks)

°
The
sampling
frequency
and
methodology
°
List
of
chemical
constituents
in
wastewater
to
be
monitored.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
°
Facilities
must
submit
a
copy
of
the
sampling
plan
to
the
appropriate
regulatory
authority.

°
Prior
to
commencement
of
direct
monitoring,
the
facility
must
confirm
that
the
plan
has
been
received
by
the
overseeing
agency
(
e.
g.,
by
certified
mail
return
receipt).
°
Upon
confirmation
that
the
plan
has
been
delivered
successfully,
the
facility
will
be
allowed
to
commence
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
compliance.

°
Facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
their
sampling
plan
on­
site.

°
EPA
is
not
requiring
any
other
formal
notification
to
the
agency,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
its
monitoring.

°
Facilities
Claiming
Expanded
de
minimis
Exemption
Additionally,
for
all
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
or
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
wastes
listed
in
261.31
through
261.33,
the
CWA
permit
application
(
or
for
indirect
dischargers
to
POTWs,
the
submission
to
their
pretreatment
control
authority)
must
list
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
the
listed
wastes.
In
addition,
facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
a
copy
of
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
on
site.

(
i)
Data
Items
°
For
facilities
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring,
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
includes
the
monitoring
point
location
(
headworks),
the
sampling
frequency
and
methodology,
and
a
list
of
constituents
to
be
monitored.

°
For
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
or
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
wastes
listed
in
261.31
through
261.33,
the
CWA
permit
application
or
the
submission
to
a
pretreatment
control
authority
must
list
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste.
12
(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Claimants
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G),
as
amended,
must
conduct
the
following
activities:

°
Read
the
rule;

°
Prepare
and
submit
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
regulatory
agency
prior
to
the
commencement
of
direct
monitoring
and
confirm
receipt;

°
Conduct
direct
monitoring
in
compliance
with
plan;
and
°
Update
the
plan
if
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
monitoring.

Claimants
of
a
de
minimis
loss
of
F­
or
K­
listed
wastes
or
non­
manufacturing
facilities
claiming
a
de
minimis
loss
of
wastes
listed
in
261.31
through
261.33:

°
List
the
Appendix
VII
hazardous
constituents
and
the
LDR
constituents
associated
with
the
listed
wastes
in
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission;
and
°
Retain
a
copy
of
the
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
on
site.
13
6.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
6(
a)
Agency
Activities
The
Agency
will
receive,
review,
and
file
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
submitted
by
claimants
who
use
direct
monitoring.

There
are
no
other
Agency
activities
under
the
rule.

6(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
Agency
must
receive,
review,
and
file
the
sampling
and
analysis
plans
from
claimants
who
choose
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
their
compliance
with
the
exemption.

6(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
EPA
believes
that
the
rule
will
not
have
adverse
burden
impacts
on
small
entities,
for
the
following
reasons.
First,
the
rule
extends
the
exemption
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B)
to
two
additional
wastes
(
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol),
clarifies
that
the
exemption
applies
to
combustor
scrubber
water,
and
expands
the
de
minimis
exemption
to
nonmanufacturing
sites
and
de
minimis
releases
of
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes.
In
this
regard,
the
rule
is
de­
regulatory;
both
small
and
large
entities
could
benefit
from
reduced
hazardous
waste
management
costs.
In
addition,
the
exemptions
are
nonmandatory
i.
e.,
entities
need
not
claim
the
exemption
unless
it
is
cost­
effective
for
them.
Finally,
the
rule
gives
claimants
added
flexibility
in
demonstrating
their
compliance
with
the
exemptions.
They
may
continue
to
use
their
existing
methods
(
e.
g.,
mass
balance)
or
direct
monitoring,
whichever
is
more
cost­
effective.

6(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Claimants
choosing
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
must
prepare
and
submit
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency
prior
to
commencement
of
monitoring
and
confirm
receipt
by
the
regulatory
agency.
EPA
is
not
requiring
any
other
formal
notification
to
the
regulatory
agency,
unless
a
change
in
the
facility's
operations
mandates
a
change
in
monitoring.
Facilities
claiming
any
part
of
the
expanded
de
minimis
exemption
must
list
Appendix
VII
and
LDR
hazardous
constituents
for
each
affected
waste
in
the
CWA
permit
application
or
the
submission
to
a
pretreatment
control
authority,
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
the
exemption.

No
other
collection
schedule
is
specified
in
the
rule.
14
6
EPA's
20
July
2005
Economics
Background
Document
for
this
final
rule
estimates
direct
monitoring
average
cost
per
waste
sampling
event
at
$
97.50
(
a
type
of
O&
M
cost).
The
final
rule
requires
a
minimum
of
one
direct
monitoring
event
per
operating
week.
Assuming
an
average
of
48
industrial
operating
weeks
per
year
(
subtracting
four
weeks
per
year
for
plant
maintenance
and
vacation
shutdowns),
EPA
estimates
the
incremental
cost
for
direct
monitoring
sampling
and
analysis
per
facility
per
year
to
be
[$
97.50
x
(
48
weeks/
year)]
=
$
4,680/
year.
7.
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
HOURS
AND
COSTS
OF
THE
COLLECTION
7(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Hours
Exhibits
1
and
2
present
EPA's
estimates
of
the
first­
year
annually
recurring,
and
3­
year
average
annualized
respondent
(
i.
e.,
industrial
facility)
burden
hours
associated
with
the
paperwork
requirements
in
the
RCRA
Headworks
Exemptions
final
rule.
In
addition
to
the
new
paperwork
requirements
in
the
rule,
Exhibits
5
to
7
present
EPA's
estimates
of
the
burden
and
cost
that
respondents
could
expect
as
a
result
of
complying
with
other
existing
RCRA
hazardous
waste
information
collection
requirements
for
the
wastes
affected
by
the
Headworks
Exemption
final
rule.
Because
the
addition
of
benzene
and
2­
ethoxyethanol
will
increase
the
number
of
facilities
that
participate
in
the
existing
headworks
exemptions
(
and
possibly
the
number
of
facilities
using
direct
monitoring),
and
because
the
expansion
of
the
de
minimis
exemption
is
expected
to
increase
the
number
facilities
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
the
exemption,
EPA
expects
there
will
be
both
a
reduction
in
some
paperwork
requirements
(
i.
e.,
preparation
of
hazardous
waste
manifests
and
Biennial
Reports)
and
an
increase
in
other
paperwork
requirements
(
i.
e.,
demonstrating
compliance
by
using
mass
balance
and
submitting
a
one­
time
LDR
notification
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
7);
submitting
lists
of
Appendix
VII
and
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste
for
which
the
expanded
de
minimis
exemption
is
being
sought;
and
retaining
copies
of
the
CWA
permit
applications
or
POTW
submissions
containing
such
lists).

7(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
1)
Labor
Costs
Based
on
the
2004
labor
wage
rate
data
for
respondents
displayed
in
Exhibit
8
(
i.
e.,
wage
rates
"
loaded"
with
fringe
benefit
costs
plus
overhead
costs),
EPA
estimates
an
average
hourly
respondent
labor
cost
of:

°
$
85/
hour
for
legal
staff
°
$
70/
hour
for
managerial
staff
°
$
24/
hour
for
technical
staff
°
$
18/
hour
for
clerical
staff
Using
these
hourly
wage
rates,
Exhibits
1
and
2
provide
estimate
of
the
labor
costs
associated
with
the
information
collection
requirements
covered
in
this
ICR.

(
2)
Capital
and
Operation/
Maintenance
Costs
Capital
costs
usually
include
any
produced
physical
good
needed
to
provide
the
needed
information,
such
as
machinery,

computers,
and
other
equipment.
Operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
are
those
costs
associated
with
a
paperwork
requirement
incurred
continually
over
the
life
of
the
ICR.
They
are
defined
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
as
"
the
recurring
dollar
amount
of
costs
associated
with
O&
M
or
purchasing
services."
Exhibit
1
(
Column
1H)
estimates
$
4,103
per
facility
per
year
in
O&
M
costs,
plus
$
577
in
annual
labor
costs
(
Column
1F)
 
totaling
$
4,680
per
facility
per
year
 
for
conducting
site­
specific
sampling
and
analysis.
6
This
Exhibit
also
estimates
postage
costs
(
for
certified
delivery)
for
submitting
the
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency.
In
addition,
Exhibit
5
(
Column
5E)
and
Exhibit
7
(
Column
7C)
present
minor
(
e.
g.,
postage)
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
four
other
ICRs
affected
by
this
final
rule.
15
7(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Hours
and
Costs
Exhibits
3
and
4
provide
estimates
of
the
burden
hour
and
cost
to
the
Agency
(
i.
e.,
to
RCRA­
authorized
state
government
agencies),
associated
with
the
requirements
covered
in
this
ICR.
Based
on
the
2004
labor
wage
rate
data
for
government
agencies
displayed
in
Exhibit
9
(
i.
e.,
wage
rates
"
loaded"
with
fringe
benefit
costs
plus
overhead
costs),
EPA
estimates
average
hourly
labor
rates
of:

°
$
61/
hour
for
legal
staff
°
$
58/
hour
for
managerial
staff
°
$
34/
hour
for
technical
staff
°
$
22/
hour
for
clerical
staff.

7(
d)
Estimating
the
Annual
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Hours
and
Cost
This
section
describes
the
respondent
universe
potentially
affected
by
the
rule,
and
then
provides
an
estimate
of
the
incremental
annual
burden
to
respondents
under
the
rule's
information
collection
requirements.

°
Respondent
Universe
Table
2
below
presents
itemized
and
an
aggregate
estimate
of
3,266
to
10,446
respondents
(
i.
e.,
industrial
facilities)

expected
to
voluntarily
claim
an
exemption
under
the
rule,
for
each
of
the
five
revisions
to
the
RCRA
headworks
exclusions.

The
estimates
shown
in
Table
2
are
numerical
ranges
based
on
EPA's
20
July
2005
Economics
Background
Document
(
EBD)
for
this
rule.
However,
because
of
reasons
explained
in
the
EBD
which
indicates
that
the
actual
number
of
affected
entities
is
probably
closer
to
the
lower­
bound
(
i.
e.,
aggregate
count
of
3,266
facilities),
this
ICR
applies
single­
point
estimates
of
affected
facilities
based
on
the
lower­
bound
of
the
facility
count
ranges
displayed
in
Table
2.

Some
of
the
burden
associated
with
these
claimants
is
one­
year
only
(
i.
e.,
initial
first
year),
and
some
of
the
burden
is
annually
recurring.
Furthermore,
because
the
purpose
of
this
ICR
is
to
estimate
annual
burden
under
the
rule,
EPA
has
annualized
burden
over
the
3­
year
lifespan
of
this
ICR:

30
Two
solvents:
Between
115
and
1,800
facilities
are
expected
in
the
first­
year
of
this
ICR,
to
claim
the
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B),
as
amended,
for
benzene
or
2­
ethoxyethanol.
Furthermore,
although
EPA
expects
that
some
claimants
of
the
exemption
for
benzene
or
2­
ethoxyethanol
will
choose
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
their
compliance
with
the
exemption,
this
ICR
assumes
that
this
subgroup
will
use
the
mass
balance
approach,
to
avoid
possible
double­
counting
with
the
separate
estimate
of
direct
monitoring
burden
provided
elsewhere
in
this
ICR
Supporting
Statement.

31
Scrubber
waters:
3
to
9
combustion
facilities
using
wet
scrubbers
currently
combust
F­
listed
hazardous
waste
and
generate
combustion
scrubber
waters
which
may
be
eligible
for
the
exemption
under
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B),
as
amended.

Similarly
to
the
two
solvent
exemption
burden,
this
ICR
assigns
mass
balance
burden
to
this
subgroup
to
avoid
possible
double­
counting
for
the
separate
estimate
of
direct
monitoring
burden.

32
Direct
monitoring
Between
1,811
and
7,300
claimants
are
expected
to
be
drawn
to
the
exemptions
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G),
as
amended,
because
of
the
ability
to
conduct
direct
monitoring.
33
&
5
De
minimis
(
2
items):
1,337
facilities
are
expected
to
take
advantage
of
the
expanded
de
minimis
exemption
in
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
D).
16
Table
2:
Estimated
Count
of
Industrial
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
as
Voluntary
Claimants
by
EPA's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Headworks
Exemption
Item
Type
of
Voluntary
Claimant
Count
of
Voluntary
Claimants
(
Industrial
Facilities)

Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
1
Claimants
of
exemption
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B)
for
benzene
or
2­

ethoxyethanol
115
1,800
2
Claimants
of
exemption
at
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A)
or
(
B)
for
combustor
scrubber
water
3
9
3
Claimants
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G)
expected
to
conduct
direct
monitoring
1,811
7,300
4
Claimants
of
"
de
minimis"
exemption
for
F­
and
K­
listed
wastes
71
5
Claimants
of
"
de
minimis"
exemption
at
non­
manufacturing
facilities
1,266
Column
Totals*
=
3,266
10,446
Explanatory
Notes:

°
Source:
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Table
1
of
Economics
Background
Document
(
EBD)
for
the
RCRA
Headworks
Revised
Exemption
Final
Rule,
20
July
2005
(
available
in
Docket
nr.
RCRA­
2002­
0028
at
EPA's
Electronic
Docket:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket).

°
EPA's
EBD
indicates
that
the
lower­
bound
estimates
are
probably
more
accurate
that
the
upper­
bound
estimates,
and
that
the
column
total
facility
counts
may
include
some
double­
counting
of
facilities
which
claim
more
than
one
of
the
five
revised
exemptions
in
the
final
rule.
Consequently,
this
ICR
applies
the
lower­
bound
estimates.

°
Annual
Respondent
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Under
the
Rule
(
1)
Reading
the
Regulations
The
lower­
bound
of
Table
2
estimates
an
incremental
count
of
3,266
facilities
may
voluntarily
claim
an
exemption
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G),
as
amended
by
the
final
rule.
Because
the
purpose
of
this
ICR
is
to
estimate
average
annualized
burden,
the
single
year
burden
for
this
activity
is
averaged
over
three
years.
EPA
estimates
the
incremental
labor
hour
burden
for
reading
the
regulation
to
average
30
minutes
per
claimant.
This
assumption
is
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

(
2)
Preparing
and
Submitting
Sampling
and
Analysis
Plan
EPA
estimates
that
1,518
claimants
may
be
expected
to
initiate
in
the
first­
year,
and
annually
conduct,
direct
monitoring.

These
claimants
must
initially
prepare
and
submit
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
to
the
regulatory
agency
and
confirm
delivery
prior
to
commencing
direct
monitoring.
EPA
estimates
the
incremental
labor
hour
burden
for
this
activity
to
be
two
hours.
This
assumption
is
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

(
3)
Conducting
Direct
Monitoring
EPA
estimates
that
1,811
facilities
may
conduct
direct
monitoring
annually,
on
average,
during
the
life
of
this
ICR.
In
EPA's
20
July
2005
Economics
Background
Document
for
this
final
rule,
EPA
estimates
that
the
direct
monitoring
cost
per
event
is
$
97.50,
of
which
about
$
12
represents
an
average
one­
half
hour
of
labor
for
wastewater
sampling
at
the
regulated
entity.
This
labor
cost
could
be
for
using
on­
site
personnel,
or
for
contracting
with
off­
site
sampling
services.
The
final
17
7
EPA
initially
prepared
this
ICR
in
2002
to
estimate
the
paperwork
requirements
under
the
proposed
rule.
At
that
time,
EPA
reviewed
in
detailed
the
existing
RCRA
ICRs
potentially
affected
by
the
rule.
EPA
then
estimated
the
annual
cost
impacts
under
the
existing
RCRA
paperwork
requirements
in
2002
dollars.
These
costs
are
not
updated
in
this
ICR
Supporting
Statement,
but
are
applied
directly
from
the
reference
ICRs
without
update.

8
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
affected
information
collection
requirements
in
these
ICRs.

9
For
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
assumes
that
claimants
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),
(
F),
or
(
G)
have
already
generated
hazardous
waste
sludge
from
their
wastewater
units
and
shipped
it
off­
site
with
the
one­
time
LDR
notice
under
268.7(
a)(
1).
Hence,
they
will
not
incur
savings
under
this
requirement
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
On
the
other
hand,
EPA
assumes
that
claimants
of
de
minimis
releases
have
not
previously
transmitted
an
LDR
notice,
since
these
claimants
operate
non­
hazardous
wastewater
systems
that
potentially
generate
non­
hazardous
sludge.
Hence,
they
may
be
relieved
of
rule
requires
a
minimum
of
one
direct
monitoring
event
per
operating
week.
Assuming
48
operating
weeks
per
year,
EPA
estimates
the
annual
incremental
labor
hour
burden
per
facility
to
be
24
hours
per­
facility
(
i.
e.,
(
0.5
hours/
week)
x
(
48
weeks/
year)
=
24
hours/
year).
This
assumption
is
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

(
4)
Updating
Sampling
Plan
and
Analysis
EPA
estimates
that
between
1%
to
2%
of
claimants
(
say
1.5%),
on
average,
may
need
to
modify
their
site­
specific
plan
each
year
because
a
change
in
the
facility
operations
mandates
a
change
in
the
plan.
As
shown
in
Column
1I
of
Exhibit
1,
this
equates
to
27
facilities
per
year
(
i.
e.,
1.811
facilities
x
1.5%=
27
facilities/
year).
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
take
one­
half
hour
(
30
minutes)
to
update
the
sampling
plan.
This
assumption
is
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

(
5)
Claiming
Expanded
de
minimis
Exemption
EPA
estimates
that
1,337
facilities
(
i.
e.,
71
+
1,266
facilities
from
Table
2)
may
take
advantage
of
the
expanded
de
minimis
exemption
each
year.
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
take
each
of
these
facilities
30
minutes
to
document
all
expected
Appendix
VII
and
LDR
constituents
associated
with
each
listed
waste
for
which
there
may
be
a
possible
de
minimis
release
and
to
transmit
their
CWA
permit
application
or
POTW
submission
to
the
proper
authority.

°
Annual
Respondent
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
under
Headworks
Exemptions
Final
Rule
and
Existing
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
Exhibit
5
presents
the
incremental
hour
and
cost
burden
to
claimants
under
the
regulatory
requirements.
It
also
shows
the
annual
hour
and
cost
impacts
under
the
existing
RCRA
paperwork
requirements.
Exhibit
5
also
presents
total
annual
respondent
hours
and
costs
broken
out
by
the
EPA
ICRs
affected
by
the
rule.
7
Following
are
the
affected
ICRs,
along
with
a
brief
description
of
relevant
assumptions:
8
°
EPA
ICR
1189:
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
ICR:
Claimants
that
do
not
opt
for
direct
monitoring
must
conduct
a
mass
balance
under
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
A),
(
B),

(
F),
or
(
G).
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
preparing
the
mass
balance.
°
EPA
ICR
976:
Biennial
Report
ICR:
Claimants
are
expected
to
be
relieved
of
the
need
to
prepare
Waste
Generation
and
Management
(
GM)
Forms
for
their
exempted
waste.
Receiving
facilities
will
be
relieved
of
the
need
to
prepare
a
Waste
Received
from
Off­
Site
(
WR)
Form.

O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
maintaining
copies
of
GM
and
WR
Forms.
°
EPA
ICR
1442:
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
ICR:
All
claimants
must
prepare
and
keep
records
of
the
one­
time
notice
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
7)
and
(
8).
Claimants
of
the
de
minimis
exemption
will
be
relieved
of
the
one­
time
notice
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
in
shipping
their
exempted
waste
offsite.
9
There
are
no
O&
M
costs.
18
the
LDR
notice
under
the
exemption,
provided
there
is
a
de
minimis
release
to
their
system.

10
Source:
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Economics
Background
Document
for
the
RCRA
Revised
Headworks
Final
Rule,
20
July
2005.
°
EPA
ICR
801:
Manifest
ICR:
Claimants
are
expected
to
be
relieved
of
manifesting
2,037
shipments
under
the
exemptions.
10
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
postage
for
sending
and
returning
copies
of
the
manifest
forms.
19
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
1G
1H
1I
1J
1K
1L
1M
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
$
85.42/
Hr
$
70.16/
Hr
$
24.06/
Hr
$
18.51/
Hr
1
Read
the
rule
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.50
$
23
$
0
$
0
3,266
1,633
$
74,386
$
0
$
0
2
Prepare
and
submit
site­
specific
sampling
plan
0.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
2.00
$
68
$
0
$
3
1,811
3,622
$
123,863
$
0
$
4,835
3
Conduct
direct
monitoring
0.00
0.00
24.00
0.00
24.00
$
577
$
0
$
4,103
1,811
43,464
$
1,045,744
$
0
$
7,429,736
4
Update
and
submit
the
sampling
plan,
if
needed
0.00
0.10
0.25
0.15
0.50
$
16
$
0
$
3
27
14
$
429
$
0
$
73
5
Keep
records
of
documents
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.15
0.50
$
11
$
0
$
0
1,337
669
$
14,971
$
0
$
0
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
$
0
varies
varies
49,401
$
1,259,393
$
0
$
7,434,644
Totals
=

Information
Activity
Exhibit
1
Estimated
Respondent
(
Facility)
Burden
Hour
and
Cost
Under
Proposed
Requirements
Direct
Monitoring:
Site­
Specific
Sampling
Plan
Facilities
Claiming
Expanded
de
minimis
Exemption
Total
Hours
(
1E
x
1I)
Total
Labor
Costs
(
1F
x
1I)
Total
Capital
Cost
(
1G
x
1I)
Total
O&
M
Costs
(
1H
x
1I)

Labor
Cost
(
based
on
1A
to
1D)
First­
Year
Capital
Costs
Annual
O&
M
Costs
Count
of
Respondents
(
Facilities)
Total
Hours
and
Costs
(
All
Respondents)

Average
Hours
and
Costs
Per
Respondent
(
Per
Facility)

Respondent
Hours
Per­

Facility
(
1A+
1B+
1C+
1D
)

2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
Firs
t­
y
e
a
r
hours
(
p
a
r
s
e
d
from
1
J)
A
nnual
recu
r
rin
g
ho
urs
(
p
a
rsed
from
1
J)
3
­
ye
a
r
a
ve
rag
e
ho
urs
[(
2A
/
3
)
+
2
B
]
F
irs
t­
y
e
a
r
c
o
s
t
[(
p
a
r
s
e
d
from
1K
)
+
1L]
A
n
nu
a
l
re
cur
r
ing
co
s
t
[
(
p
a
r
sed
from
1
K
)+
1M
]
3
­
y
ea
r
annu
alize
d
cost
[(
2D
/
3
)
+
2E
]

1
R
e
ad
the
rule
1
,633
0
5
44
$
7
4
,386
$
0
$
2
4
,79
5
2
P
rep
a
re
a
n
d
su
bmit
s
ite
­
s
p
e
c
ific
s
amp
ling
p
lan
3
,622
0
1,2
07
$
12
3
,863
$
0
$
4
1
,28
8
3
C
o
nd
u
ct
d
ire
ct
m
o
n
ito
ring
0
4
3
,4
64
4
3
,4
64
0
$
8
,47
5
,480
$
8
,4
7
5
,48
0
4
U
pd
ate
a
n
d
subm
it
the
samplin
g
p
lan,

if
n
eed
ed
0
14
14
0
$
502
$
50
2
5
K
eep
reco
rd
s
o
f
d
o
cum
ents
0
6
69
6
69
0
$
1
4
,971
$
1
4
,97
1
5
,255
4
4
,1
46
4
5
,8
98
$
19
8
,249
$
8
,49
0
,953
$
8
,5
5
7
,03
6
E
xhibit
2
P
a
r
se
o
f
R
e
sp
ond
e
nt
(
F
a
c
il
ity
)
B
ur
d
en
A
c
cor
d
ing
to
F
ir
st
­
Y
e
a
r
o
r
A
nn
ua
lly
R
ecu
r
r
in
g
T
otals
=

D
ire
ct
M
on
itor
in
g:
S
ite­
S
p
e
cif
ic
S
am
plin
g
P
lan
F
a
c
ilitie
s
C
la
im
in
g
E
xp
and
ed
d
e
m
in
im
is
E
xem
p
tion
Info
rm
a
tio
n
A
c
tiv
ity
B
urd
e
n
H
o
urs
B
urd
en
C
o
s
t
20
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
3G
3H
3I
3J
3K
3L
3M
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
$
61.51/
Hr
$
58.03/
Hr
$
33.76/
Hr
$
22.19/
Hr
6
Receive
and
review
site­
specific
sampling
plans
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.00
0.60
$
23
$
0
$
0
1,811
1,087
$
41,079
$
0
$
0
7
Receive
and
review
updated
sitespecific
sampling
plans
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.15
$
5
$
0
$
0
27
4
$
138
$
0
$
0
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
$
0
varies
varies
1,091
$
41,217
$
0
$
0
Enrollment
Form
Totals
=
Exhibit
3
Estimated
Annual
Agency
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Under
Proposed
Requirements
Information
Activity
Agency
Hours
and
Costs
Agency
Hours
(
3A+
3B+
3C
+
3D)
Labor
Cost
(
based
on
3A
to
3D)
First­
Year
Capital
Costs
Annual
O&
M
Costs
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Count
of
Respondents
(
Facilities)
Total
Hours
(
3E
x
3I)
Total
Labor
Costs
(
3F
x
3I)
Total
Capital
Cost
(
3G
x
3I)
Total
O&
M
Costs
(
3H
x
3I)

4A
4B
4C
4D
4E
4F
First­
year
hours
(
parsed
from
3J)
Annual
recurring
hours
(
parsed
from
3J)
3­
year
average
hours
[(
4A/
3)

+
4B]
First­
year
cost
[(
parsed
from
3K)

+
3L]
Annual
recurring
cost
[(
parsed
from
3K)
+
3M]
3­
year
average
cost
[(
4D/
3)
+

4E]

6
Receive
and
review
site­
specific
sampling
plans
1,087
0
362
$
41,079
$
0
$
13,693
7
Receive
and
review
updated
sitespecific
sampling
plans
0
4
4
$
0
$
138
$
138
1,087
4
366
$
41,079
$
138
$
13,831
Totals
=

Enrollment
Form
Exhibit
4
Information
Activity
Parse
of
Agency
Burden
According
to
First­
Year
or
Annually
Recurring
Burden
Hours
Burden
Cost
21
7A
7B
7C
7D
Hours
Per
Year
Labor
C
ost
Pe
r
Year
O&
M
C
ost
Per
Year
To
ta
l
A
nnual
Co
st
(
7B
+
7C)

Claimants
C
onducting
a
Mass
B
alance
28.0
$
1,444
$
5.00
$
1,449
C
laimants
(
0.3
)
($
18)
($
0.02)
($
18
)

All
C
laimants
under
268.7(
a)(
7)
and
(
8)
0.6
$
30
$
0.00
$
30
C
laimants
(
0.8
)
($
31)
($
0.06)
($
31
)
Note:
ICR
capital
costs
exc
luded
from
this
table
b
ecause
not
relevant
to
annual
recurring
burden.
P
er­
F
acility
B
urden
D
a
ta
F
rom
O
ther
ICRs
A
ffec
ted
b
y
H
eadworks
F
ina
l
R
ule
Sour
ce
D
ata
for
E
xhibit
5
IC
R
N
ame
&
ICR
N
r.
Item
M
anifest
ICR
(
N
r.
8
01)
Identification,
Listing,
and
R
ulema
king
P
etitions
ICR
(
Nr.
1189.09)

Biennial
R
eport
ICR
(
Nr.
97
6)

Land
D
isposal
R
estrictions
ICR
(
Nr.
1442)
8
9
10
11
Exhibit
7
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
First­
year
hours
(
parsed
from
5C)
Annual
recurring
hours
(
parsed
from
5C)
3­
year
average
hours
[(
6A)/
3
+
6B]
First­
year
cost
(
parsed
from
5D)
Annual
recurring
cost
[(
parsed
from
5D)
+
5E]
3­
year
average
cost
[(
6D)/
3
+
6E]

8
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
mass
balance)
0
3,304
3,304
$
0
$
171,572
$
171,572
9
Biennial
Report
ICR
0
­
1,045
­
1,045
$
0
­$
58,461
­$
58,461
10
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
ICR
1,992
0
664
$
96,804
$
0
$
32,268
11
Manifest
ICR
0
­
2,491
­
2,491
$
0
­$
100,360
­$
100,360
1,992
­
232
432
$
96,804
$
12,750
$
45,018
1
to
5
Headworks
Revised
Rule
ICR
5,255
44,146
45,898
$
198,249
$
8,490,953
$
8,557,036
7,247
43,914
46,330
$
295,053
$
8,503,703
$
8,602,054
Parse
of
Respondent
(
Facility)
Burden
According
to
First­
Year
or
Annually
Recurring
Net
Impact
=
Subtotal
other
ICRs
(
8+
9+
10+
11)
=
ICR
Name
Exhibit
6
Item
5A
5B
5C
5D
5E
ICR
Number
Count
of
Respondents
(
Facilities)
Labor
Hours
(
5B
x
7A)
Labor
Cost
(
5B
x
7B)
Annual
O&
M
Cost
(
5B
x
7C)

8
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
mass
balance)
1189.09
118
3,304
$
170,982
$
590
9
Biennial
Report
ICR
976
3,266
(
1,045)
­$
58,396
­$
65
10
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
ICR
1442
3,266
1,992
$
96,804
$
0
11
Manifest
ICR
801
3,266
(
2,491)
­$
100,180
­$
180
varies
1,760
$
109,210
$
345
1
to
5
Headworks
Revised
Rule
ICR
1189.17
varies
49,401
$
1,259,393
$
7,434,644
51,161
$
1,368,603
$
7,434,989
Exhibit
5
Respondent
(
Facility)
Burden
Impacts
Under
Other
Existing
EPA
Paperwork
Requirements
Net
Impact
(
Headworks
ICR
+
Subtotal
Other
ICRs)
=
Subtotal
Other
ICRs
(
8+
9+
10+
11)
=
ICR
Name
Item
22
Exhibit
8:
Private
Industry
Respondent
Labor
Wage
Assumptions
(
2004)

Labor
Type
>
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
A.
Mean
hourly
wage
($/
hour
unloaded)*
May
2004
$
55.07
$
44.24
$
15.51
$
11.62
B.
Wage
benefits**
March
2005
38.5%
41.6%
38.5%
42.2%

C.
Overhead
factor***
May
2003
12%
12%
12%
12%

D.
Total
loading
factor
[(
100%
+
B)
x
(
100%
+
C)]
­
100%
55.1%
58.6%
55.1%
59.3%

E.
Loaded
mean
hourly
wage
($/
hour)

[
A
x
(
100%
+
D)]
$
85.42
$
70.16
$
24.06
$
18.51
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
NAICS
541100
­
Legal
Services:
These
national
occupational
employment
and
wage
estimates
are
calculated
with
data
collected
from
employers
of
all
sizes,
in
metropolitan
&

non­
metropolitan
areas
in
every
State
National
estimates
for
this
occupation:
These
estimates
are
calculated
with
data
collected
from
employers
in
all
industry
sectors
in
metropolitan
and
non­
metropolitan
areas
in
every
State.
NAICS
541300
­
Architecture,
Engineering,

&
Related
Services
consisting
of
NAICS
541310
­
Architecture
Services,
NAICS
541320
­
Landscape
Architecture,
NAICS
541330
­
Engineering
Services,
NAICS
541340
­
Drafting
Services,
NAICS
541350
­

Building
Inspection,
NAICS
541360
­

Geophysical
Mapping,
NAICS
541370
­

Other
Mapping,
NAICS
541380­
Test
Labs
National
estimates
for
this
occupation:

These
estimates
are
calculated
with
data
collected
from
employers
in
all
industry
sectors
in
metropolitan
and
non­
metropolitan
areas
in
every
State.

Standard
Occupational
Classification
(
SOC)

code
23­
1011
Lawyers:

Represent
clients
in
criminal
and
civil
litigation
and
other
legal
proceedings,

draw
up
legal
documents,

and
manage
or
advise
clients
on
legal
transactions.

May
specialize
in
a
single
area
or
may
practice
broadly
in
many
areas
of
law.
11­
1021
General
&
Operations
Managers:
Plan,
direct,

or
coordinate
operations
of
companies
or
organizations.

Duties
&
responsibilities
include
formulating
policies,

managing
daily
operations,
&
planning
use
of
materials
&
human
resources,
but
are
too
diverse
&
general
in
nature
to
be
classified
in
any
one
functional
area
of
management
or
administration,
such
as
personnel,

purchasing,
or
administrative
services.
Include
owners
&
managers
who
head
small
business
establishments
whose
duties
are
primarily
managerial.
Exclude
"
First­
Line
Supervisors/
Managers
of
Retail
Sales
Workers"
(
41­
1011)
&
workers
in
other
small
establishments
19­
4091
Environmental
Science
&
Protection
Technicians,
Including
Health:
Performs
laboratory
and
field
tests
to
monitor
the
environment
and
investigate
sources
of
pollution,
including
those
that
affect
health.

Under
direction
of
an
environmental
scientist
or
specialist,
may
collect
samples
of
gases,

soil,
water,
and
other
materials
for
testing
and
take
corrective
actions
as
assigned.
43­
9061
Office
Clerks,
General:

Perform
duties
too
varied
&
diverse
to
be
classified
in
any
specific
clerical
occupation,
requiring
limited
knowledge
of
office
management
procedures.
Clerical
duties
may
be
assigned
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
of
individual
establishments
and
may
include
answering
telephones,
bookkeeping,

typing,
word
processing,
stenography,

office
machine
operation
&
filing
Respondent
Data
Sources:

*
Wages:
Unloaded
hourly
wage
data
from
US
Dept
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Occupational
Employment
Statistics,
"
May
2004
National
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates"
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
current/
oessrci.
htm).

**
Benefits:
US
Dept
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
"
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
 
March
2005",
publication
nr.
USDL:
05­
1056,
16
June
2005,
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
pdf/
ecec.
pdf;
EPA­
OSW
computed
the
benefits
multiplier
as
the
"
Total
benefit
costs"

divided
by
"
Total
compensation"
shown
in
Table
9
for
private
industry
workers,
using
"
Professional
and
related"
series
for
legal
and
technical,
"
Management,
business
and
financial"
for
managerial,
and
"
Office
and
administrative
support"
for
clerical.
"
Benefits
include:
(
1)
Paid
leave
 
vacations,
holidays,
sick
leave,
and
other
leave;
(
2)
supplemental
pay
 
overtime
and
premium
pay
for
work
in
addition
to
the
regular
work
schedule
(
such
as
weekends
and
holidays),
shift
differentials,
and
nonproduction
bonuses
(
such
as
referral
bonuses
and
lump­
sum
payments
provided
in
lieu
of
wage
increases);
(
3)
insurance
benefits
 
life,
health,
short­
term
disability,
and
long­
term
disability;
(
4)
retirement
and
savings
benefits
 
defined
benefit
and
defined
contribution
plans;
(
5)
legally
required
benefits
 
Social
Security,
Medicare,
Federal
and
State
unemployment
insurance,
and
workers'
compensation;
and
(
6)
other
benefits
 
severance
pay
and
supplemental
unemployment
plans."

***
Overhead:
OMB
Circular
A­
76,
Attachment
C:
Calculating
Public­
Private
Competition
Costs,
Figure
C1:
Table
of
Standard
A­
76
Costing
Factors,
page
C­
4,
29
May
2003;
http://
www.
whitehouse.
gov/
omb/
circulars/
a076/
a76_
incl_
tech_
correction.
pdf;
"
Overhead
includes
two
major
categories
of
cost,
operations
overhead
and
general
and
administrative
overhead.
Operations
overhead
includes
costs
that
are
not
100
percent
attributable
to
the
activity
being
competed
but
are
generally
associated
with
the
recurring
management
or
support
of
the
activity.
General
and
administrative
overhead
includes
salaries,
equipment,
space,
and
other
tasks
related
to
headquarters
management,
accounting,
personnel,
legal
support,
data
processing
management,
and
similar
common
services
performed
external
to
the
activity,
but
in
support
of
the
activity
being
competed.
A
standard
twelve
percent
overhead
factor
is
an
estimated
federal
agency
overhead
factor
that
is
calculated
in
agency
and
public
reimbursable
cost
estimates
for
streamlined
and
standard
competitions."

Exhibit
9:
State
Government
Agency
Labor
Wage
Assumptions
(
2004)

Labor
Type
>
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
A.
Mean
hourly
wage
($/
hour
unloaded)*
May
2004
$
34.65
$
32.69
$
19.02
$
12.50
23
B.
Wage
benefits**
March
2005
58.5%
58.5%
58.5%
58.5%

C.
Overhead
factor***
May
2003
12%
12%
12%
12%

D.
Total
loading
factor
[(
100%
+
B)
x
(
100%
+
C)]
­
100%
77.5%
77.5%
77.5%
77.5%

E.
Loaded
mean
hourly
wage
($/
hour)

[
A
x
(
100%
+
D)]
$
61.51
$
58.03
$
33.76
$
22.19
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
°
NAICS
999200
­
State
Government:
these
national
industry­
specific
occupational
employment
and
wage
estimates
are
calculated
with
data
collected
from
employers
of
all
sizes,
in
metropolitan
and
non­
metropolitan
areas
in
every
State.

°
EPA­
OSW
did
not
use
Federal
government
wage
statistics
(
i.
e.,
NAICS
999100
­
Federal
Executive
Branch
and
United
States
Postal
Service
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
current/
naics4_
999100.
htm)
because
state
governments
mostly
(
e.
g.,
48
of
50
states)
administer
the
Federal
EPA
RCRA
program
as
"

RCRAauthorized
state
programs.

Standard
Occupational
Classification
(
SOC)

code
23­
1011
Lawyers
Represent
clients
in
criminal
and
civil
litigation
and
other
legal
proceedings,
draw
up
legal
documents,
and
manage
or
advise
clients
on
legal
transactions.
May
specialize
in
a
single
area
or
may
practice
broadly
in
many
areas
of
law.
11­
1021
General
&
Operations
Managers
Plan,
direct,
or
coordinate
the
operations
of
companies
or
public
&
private
sector
organizations.
Duties
and
responsibilities
include
formulating
policies,
managing
daily
operations,
&
planning
the
use
of
materials
&

human
resources,
but
are
too
diverse
&
general
in
nature
to
be
classified
in
any
one
functional
area
of
management
or
administration,
such
as
personnel,

purchasing,
or
administrative
services.
Include
owners
&
managers
who
head
small
business
establishments
whose
duties
are
primarily
managerial.
Exclude
"
First­
Line
Supervisors/
Managers
of
Retail
Sales
Workers"
(
41­
1011)
&
workers
in
other
small
establishments
17­
3025
Environmental
Engineering
Technicians:

Apply
theory
and
principles
of
environmental
engineering
to
modify,

test,
and
operate
equipment
and
devices
used
in
the
prevention,

control,
and
remediation
of
environmental
pollution,
including
waste
treatment
and
site
remediation.

May
assist
in
the
development
of
environmental
pollution
remediation
devices
under
direction
of
engineer.
43­
9061
Office
Clerks,
General
Perform
duties
too
varied
and
diverse
to
be
classified
in
any
specific
office
clerical
occupation,
requiring
limited
knowledge
of
office
management
systems
and
procedures.
Clerical
duties
may
be
assigned
in
accordance
with
the
office
procedures
of
individual
establishments
and
may
include
a
combination
of
answering
telephones,
bookkeeping,
typing
or
word
processing,
stenography,
office
machine
operation,
and
filing.

Agency
Data
Sources:

*
Wages:
Unloaded
hourly
wage
data
from
US
Dept
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
"
May
2004
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates"
for
NAICS
999200
­
State
Government
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
current/
naics4_
999200.
htm).

**
Benefits:
US
Dept
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
"
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
 
March
2005",
publication
nr.
USDL:
05­
1056,
16
June
2005,
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
pdf/
ecec.
pdf;
EPA­
OSW
computed
the
benefits
multiplier
as
the
"
Total
benefit
costs"

divided
by
"
Total
compensation"
shown
in
Table
4
for
state
and
local
government
workers,
using
"
Public
administration"
series
for
legal,
managerial,
technical,
and
clerical.
"
Benefits
include:
(
1)
Paid
leave
 
vacations,
holidays,
sick
leave,
and
other
leave;
(
2)
supplemental
pay
 
overtime
and
premium
pay
for
work
in
addition
to
the
regular
work
schedule
(
such
as
weekends
and
holidays),
shift
differentials,
and
nonproduction
bonuses
(
such
as
referral
bonuses
and
lump­
sum
payments
provided
in
lieu
of
wage
increases);
(
3)
insurance
benefits
 
life,
health,

short­
term
disability,
and
long­
term
disability;
(
4)
retirement
and
savings
benefits
 
defined
benefit
and
defined
contribution
plans;
(
5)
legally
required
benefits
 
Social
Security,
Medicare,
Federal
and
State
unemployment
insurance,
and
workers'
compensation;
and
(
6)
other
benefits
 
severance
pay
and
supplemental
unemployment
plans."

***
Overhead:
OMB
Circular
A­
76,
Attachment
C:
Calculating
Public­
Private
Competition
Costs,
Figure
C1:
Table
of
Standard
A­
76
Costing
Factors,
page
C­
4,
29
May
2003;
http://
www.
whitehouse.
gov/
omb/
circulars/
a076/
a76_
incl_
tech_
correction.
pdf;
"
Overhead
includes
two
major
categories
of
cost,
operations
overhead
and
general
and
administrative
overhead.
Operations
overhead
includes
costs
that
are
not
100
percent
attributable
to
the
activity
being
competed
but
are
generally
associated
with
the
recurring
management
or
support
of
the
activity.
General
and
administrative
overhead
includes
salaries,
equipment,
space,
and
other
tasks
related
to
headquarters
management,
accounting,
personnel,
legal
support,
data
processing
management,
and
similar
common
services
performed
external
to
the
activity,
but
in
support
of
the
activity
being
competed.
A
standard
twelve
percent
overhead
factor
is
an
estimated
federal
agency
overhead
factor
that
is
calculated
in
agency
and
public
reimbursable
cost
estimates
for
streamlined
and
standard
competitions."
