  TOC \o "1-6" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725527"  EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY	  PAGEREF _Toc216725527 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725528"  Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc216725528 \h 
4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725529"  I.	How does EPA Measure Reporting Burden
for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304?	  PAGEREF _Toc216725529 \h
 5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725530"  A.	CERCLA section 103 (a) – Episodic
notification requirements (40 CFR 302.6)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725530 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725531"  1.	Information Requested by the NRC from
all Callers (Notification Activities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725531 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725532"  2.	Agency Activities Upon Receipt of
Information	  PAGEREF _Toc216725532 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725533"  3.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of
CERCLA section 103(a) Notifications	  PAGEREF _Toc216725533 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725534"  a.	Facility Burden Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725534 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725535"  Exhibit 1 - Unit Burden Hours for
Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC	  PAGEREF _Toc216725535 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725536"  i.	Initial Telephone Notification
(Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725536 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725537"  ii.	Recordkeeping (Facilities)	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725537 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725538"  b.	Facility Cost Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725538 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725539"  Exhibit 2 - Unit Cost for Reporting a
Typical Release to the NRC	  PAGEREF _Toc216725539 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725540"  i.	Response Actions (Facilities)	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725540 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725541"  ii.	Labor Costs (Facilities)	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725541 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725542"  iii.	Capital and Operations and
Maintenance Costs (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725542 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725543"  c.	Government Burden and Cost Estimate	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725543 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725544"  Exhibit 3 - Government Burden Hours and
Costs for Processing a Telephone Notification	  PAGEREF _Toc216725544 \h
 10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725545"  Processing Telephone Notifications
(Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725545 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725546"  B.	CERCLA section 103 (f)(2) –
Continuous release reporting requirements (CRRR) (40 CFR 302.8)	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725546 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725547"  1.	Information Requested for Continuous
Release Reports (Notification Activities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725547 \h  12
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725548"  2.	Agency Activities Upon Receipt of
Information/Collection Methodology and Management (Government)	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725548 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725549"  3.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of
CERCLA section 103(f)(2) Continuous Release Reports	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725549 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725550"  a.	Facility Burden Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725550 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725551"  Exhibit 4 - Unit Burden Hours per
Facility Information Collection Activity	  PAGEREF _Toc216725551 \h  14 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725552"  Exhibit 5 - Burden Hours for a Typical
Facility	  PAGEREF _Toc216725552 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725553"  i.	Initial Telephone Notification to the
NRC (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725553 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725554"  ii.	Initial Written Report and the
Follow-up Written Report (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725554 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725555"  iii.	Annual Evaluation of a Release
(Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725555 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725556"  iv.	Change in the Source, Composition or
Frequency of a Release Report (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725556 \h 
18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725557"  v.	Other Changes in Information
(Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725557 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725558"  vi.	Statistically Significant Increase
(SSI) Report (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725558 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725559"  vii.	Other Activities (Facilities)	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725559 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725560"  viii.	Recordkeeping (Facilities)	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725560 \h  21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725561"  b.	Facility Cost Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725561 \h  22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725562"  i.	Labor Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc216725562
\h  22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725563"  Exhibit 6 - Unit Labor Cost per
Respondent Information Collection Activity	  PAGEREF _Toc216725563 \h 
22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725564"  Exhibit 7 - Annual Labor Costs for a
Typical Facility	  PAGEREF _Toc216725564 \h  23  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725565"  ii.	Capital and Operations and
Maintenance Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc216725565 \h  23  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725566"  Exhibit 8 - Unit Operating and
Maintenance Costs per Respondent Information Collection Activity	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725566 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725567"  Exhibit 9 - Operating and Maintenance
Costs for a Typical Facility	  PAGEREF _Toc216725567 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725568"  Exhibit 10 - Unit Labor and Operating
and Maintenance Costs per Respondent Information Collection Activity	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725568 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725569"  Exhibit 11 - Labor and Operating and
Maintenance Costs for a Typical Facility	  PAGEREF _Toc216725569 \h  26 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725570"  c.	Government Burden and Cost Estimate	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725570 \h  27  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725571"  Exhibit 12 - Unit Burden Hours and Costs
Incurred by the Government per Information Collection Activity	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725571 \h  28  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725572"  i.	Process Initial Telephone
Notifications (Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725572 \h  28  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725573"  ii.	Process Initial Written Report
(Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725573 \h  28  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725574"  iii.	Process Follow-up Written Report
(Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725574 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725575"  iv.	Process a Change in the Source(s),
Composition, or Frequency of a Release Report (Government)	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725575 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725576"  v.	Process Other Changes in Information
(Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725576 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725577"  vi.	Process an SSI (Statistically
Significant Increase) Report (Government)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725577 \h  29
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725578"  vii.	Other Activities (Government)	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725578 \h  30  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725579"  C.	EPCRA section 304(b) – Reports to
SERCs and LEPCs (40 CFR 355.42)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725579 \h  30  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725580"  1.	Information Requested for EPCRA
Reports to the SERCs and LEPCs	  PAGEREF _Toc216725580 \h  30  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725581"  2.	SERC and LEPC Activities Upon Receipt
of Information	  PAGEREF _Toc216725581 \h  31  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725582"  3.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of
EPCRA section 304 Notifications	  PAGEREF _Toc216725582 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725583"  Exhibit 13 – Section 304 Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements Estimated Unit Burden and Cost	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725583 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725584"  a.	Facility Burden Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725584 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725585"  i.	Read and Understand Regulations
(Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725585 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725586"  ii.	Emergency Release Notifications (40
CFR 355.42) (Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725586 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725587"  b.	Facility Cost Estimate	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725587 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725588"  i.	Estimating Respondent Costs
(Facilities)	  PAGEREF _Toc216725588 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725589"  c.	Government Burden and Cost Estimate	 
PAGEREF _Toc216725589 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725590"  II.	How Does EPA Expect Facilities to
Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms?	
 PAGEREF _Toc216725590 \h  34  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725591"  A.	Assumptions	  PAGEREF _Toc216725591
\h  34  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725592"  B.	Universe	  PAGEREF _Toc216725592 \h 
35  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725593"  Exhibit 14 - Estimated Universe of
Facilities	  PAGEREF _Toc216725593 \h  35  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725594"  C.        CERCLA section 103(f)(2) and
EPCRA section 304(a) Notifications	  PAGEREF _Toc216725594 \h  36  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725595"  1.	Facility Burden Estimates	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725595 \h  36  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725596"  2.	Facility Cost Estimates	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725596 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725597"  Exhibit 15a - Industry Summary/All Years
- DRAFT Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725597 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725598"  Exhibit 15b - Industry Summary/All Years
- FINAL Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725598 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725599"  3.	Burden and Cost Estimates for the
Federal Government and SERCs and LEPCs	  PAGEREF _Toc216725599 \h  40  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725600"  Exhibit 16a - Government Summary/All
Years – DRAFT Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725600 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725601"  Exhibit 16b - Government Summary/All
Years – FINAL Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725601 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725602"  III.	Conclusions	  PAGEREF _Toc216725602
\h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725603"  1.	Potential Impact of the Final Rule on
CAFO Reporting	  PAGEREF _Toc216725603 \h  43  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725604"  Exhibit 17a - Comparison with OMB
Approved ICRs – DRAFT Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725604 \h  43
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725605"  Exhibit 17b - Comparison with OMB
Approved ICRs – FINAL Economic Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc216725605 \h  43
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725606"  2.	Sensitivity Analysis	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725606 \h  44  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725607"  List of Appendices	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725607 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725608"  Appendix A – Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjustments under Sections 102 and 103
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, Volume 1, March 1985	  PAGEREF _Toc216725608 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725609"  Appendix B – Economic Analysis in
Support of the Continuous Release Reporting Regulation Under Section
103(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, April 1990	  PAGEREF _Toc216725609 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725610"  Appendix C – Regulatory Impact
Analysis in Support of Rulemaking Under Sections 302, 303, and 304 of
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
April 1987	  PAGEREF _Toc216725610 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725611"  Appendix D – Industry Burden and Cost
Summary Tables (2009 through 2018) – DRAFT	  PAGEREF _Toc216725611 \h 
45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725612"  Appendix D2 – Burden and Cost Summary
Tables (2009 through 2018) – FINAL	  PAGEREF _Toc216725612 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725613"  Appendix E – Government Burden and
Cost Summary (2009 through 2018) - DRAFT	  PAGEREF _Toc216725613 \h  45 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725614"  Appendix E2 – Government Burden and
Cost Summary (2009 through 2018) - FINAL	  PAGEREF _Toc216725614 \h  45 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725615"  Appendix F – Estimated Unit Burden and
Cost, EPCRA Section 304 (2009 through 2018) - DRAFT	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725615 \h  45  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216725616"  Appendix F2 – Estimated Unit Burden
and Cost, EPCRA Section 304 (2009 through 2018) - FINAL	  PAGEREF
_Toc216725616 \h  45  

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Economic Analysis was prepared to support the final rule entitled,
“CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of
Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms” (reporting
exemption). The Agency, through this final rule, seeks to reduce the
regulatory burden associated with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103
notification requirements, and the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 304 emergency notification
requirements.  In order to accomplish this reduction in regulatory
burden, the Agency is exempting from the notification requirements of
CERCLA section 103 and to a limited extent, EPCRA section 304 those
hazardous substance releases to the air that are from animal waste at
farms.

This FINAL Economic Analysis relies on Economic Impact Analyses (EIAs)
already in existence for the underlying notification requirements for 40
CFR 302.8, 40 CFR 302.8, and 40 CFR 355.40.  Portions of the EIAs are
incorporated in this analysis and are found in the appendices of this
economic analysis.

The final rule reduces burden and cost to industry (farms) and the
government (Federal, State and local).  The reductions are a result of
administrative reporting exemptions to CERCLA section 103 and to a
limited extent, EPCRA section 304.  In other words, some of the farms
that have had an obligation to report releases of hazardous substances
to the air from animal waste will no longer have that obligation as a
result of this final rule.  In order to calculate how much the burden
and cost are expected to be reduced, we first calculate how much burden
and cost we believe that the information we are collecting in the
reports entails (assuming full compliance with our regulations).  The
approach taken in this FINAL Economic Analysis is to describe the
baseline for the information collection and then describe what we
believe those farms would experience in providing the information. 
Because the rule is an exemption from reporting, the burden and cost
savings is the burden and cost of not making the reports (to provide the
information).

The first section of this FINAL Economic Analysis, “How does EPA
Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304?” is the baseline for the information collection.  The second
section of this FINAL Economic Analysis, “How Does EPA Expect
Facilities to Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal
Waste at Farms?” is the calculation of the burden and costs for the
farms (industry) and governments, if we were not doing this final rule. 
Those burden and cost calculations are the reductions that we expect to
see from the final rule.

In order to evaluate the economic impact that this administrative
reporting exemption will have on the regulated industry and the
government, assumptions were made to predict what a responding facility
and the recipient government agencies could reasonably expect to
experience.  Using those assumptions, unit burden and unit cost
estimates were developed.  For this economic analysis, EPA is using the
same universe that was used for the 2008 CAFO Rule (see 73 FR 70417,
Nov. 20, 2008).  Finally, this analysis calculates the impact of
exempting these facilities from the notification requirements of CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 using the universe of facilities and
the unit burden and unit cost estimates associated with making reports
and shows were there are differences from the DRAFT Economic Analysis
that was completed to support the proposed rule (see 72 FR 73700, Dec.
28, 2007).

In order to understand the current reporting requirements, this analysis
first describes the reporting requirements of CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 by referring to the Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) that were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The ICRs include those already approved for reporting hazardous
substance releases under CERCLA section 103(a) and (f)(2), and EPCRA
section 304.  It is important for the reader to understand the baseline
from which this economic analysis was developed.   

After establishing the baseline for this economic analysis, assumptions
were made regarding what facilities reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal waste at farms would do to meet the notification
requirements under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304.  For
example, we assumed in this analysis that facilities would utilize the
continuous release reporting scheme provided by CERCLA section 103(f)(2)
to meet the regulatory reporting requirements for both CERCLA and EPCRA.
 We also assumed that each facility would submit one report for all
hazardous substances released from animal waste at farms, as opposed to
one report for each hazardous substance.  However, there could be
additional reports submitted depending on whether there are changes
associated with the original written report.  The assumption that there
would be one report is based on the fact that this reporting exemption
from air releases of hazardous substances only applies to releases from
one source, animal waste at farms.  These assumptions, in addition to
some minor ones, are fully described in the relevant sections of this
analysis.

As stated above, for purposes of this economic analysis, the universe of
facilities affected by this reporting exemption is the same universe
used by the Agency for the 2008 CAFO rule.  Facilities should not rely
on the universe used for this economic analysis to determine whether
they meet regulatory thresholds for reporting their releases under
CERCLA and EPCRA notification requirements.

The economic analysis assumes that a responding farm that reports
hazardous substance releases to air from animal waste would expect to
spend an estimated average (over 10 years) total of 11.6 hours each year
to meet its notification obligations to the SERCs and LEPCs.  Burden
associated with recordkeeping is included in the estimated average.  The
estimated average (over 10 years) total cost to meet its notification
obligations to the SERCs and LEPCs is $548.  

If responding farms were to report at the level assumed for this
economic analysis then each report would require an average (over 10
years) total of 1.4 hours for the Federal Government (EPA Regions),
SERCs and LEPCs to process.  The estimated average (over 10 years) total
cost to process these notifications by the Federal Government, SERCs and
LEPCs is $72.  

The potential impact of the final rule is to avoid an increase in burden
to all regulated industries by approximately 36% and an increase in
total costs to all regulated industries by 44%.  The estimated percent
increase to overall industry O&M costs of 221% is an outlier and
therefore also impacts the estimates for total industry costs.  The
outlier occurs because the costs associated with copying and mailing
reports has increased significantly since the 1445.06 ICR was approved
by OMB.  For example, ICR 1445.06 uses a unit cost of $.25/page for
photocopying and $2.00/report for mailing the report.  The unit cost of
$.27/page for photocopying and $5.91/report for mailing the report in
year 2009 is used in the FINAL Economic Analysis.  This FINAL Economic
Analysis also has a 4.5% escalation factor built into the unit cost
estimates.  The effect of the escalation factor is that the unit cost of
$.40/page for photocopying and $8.78/report for mailing the report are
expected by year 2018. A more reasonable comparison will be to the
1445.07 ICR which is pending approval by OMB.  

If one compares the OMB Approved ICRs, 1445.06 – Continuous release
reporting requirement and 1365.06 – Emergency planning and release
notification requirements, to the Estimate for CAFO Reporting (10 yr
average), then the estimated burden and costs to the Government that
will be avoided by the proposed rule are 12% and 17%, respectively for
an estimated 36% increase in respondents.  These avoided costs to the
Government are lower than expected because the OMB Approved ICR 1365.06
includes SERC and LEPC activities that do not apply to the receipt and
making available to the public, continuous release reports submitted
under EPCRA section 304.  A more realistic estimate would compare the
OMB Approved ICR 1445.06 Government Burden of 25,785 and OMB Approved
ICR 1445.06 Government Total Cost of $1,046,000 to the Estimates for
CAFO Reporting (10 yr average).  Thus making the Government burden and
cost avoided by the final rule 61% and 76%, respectively.

Introduction

The Agency currently has in place three RIAs to support the underlying
notification regulations from which this rule will provide an
administrative reporting exemption.  Specifically, portions of the RIAs
can be found in Appendix A (Regulatory Impact Analysis of Reportable
Quantity Adjustments under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Volume 1, March
1985), Appendix B (Economic Analysis in Support of the Continuous
Release Reporting Regulation Under Section 103(f)(2) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
April 1990) and Appendix C (Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of
Rulemaking Under Sections 302, 303, and 304 of Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, April 1987).

This economic analysis has been updated to reflect the administrative
reporting exemptions that are provided in the final rule.  The
background section, “How Does EPA Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304,” provides the baseline for how the
Agency measures the burden associated with the notification
requirements.  This section has remained essentially unchanged.  There
are a few updates to reflect the November 3, 2008 final rule,
“Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; Amendments to
Emergency Planning and Notification; Emergency Release Notification and
Hazardous Chemical Reporting” (“EPCRA rule”).  (See 73 FR 65452.) 
The rule included reorganization to the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to follow a plain language format.  Since this final rule uses the
CFR citations of the EPCRA rule, edits have been made (where
appropriate) to the background section of this economic analysis to
reflect those EPCRA rule changes. 

It is important to understand how we currently measure the reporting
burden for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 since this
regulation relieves regulatory burden.  The baseline is designed to be
generic enough to apply to any facility that is required to make
notifications under CERCLA and EPCRA.    

The second section of the economic analysis, “How Does EPA Expect
Facilities to Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal
Waste at Farms,” should be closer to what those facilities may
actually experience.  In order to estimate the burden and cost savings
associated with reporting under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304, we made certain assumptions about how the facilities would make
those reports.  For example, because there is only one source of
hazardous releases eligible for the reporting exemption (animal waste at
farms), we would only expect facilities to have one set of reports for
those hazardous substances.  

For the proposed rule, we expected that facilities would use the same
continuous release report to send to the EPA Regional Office, and the
State and local governments.  The regulations that implement EPCRA
section 304 allow facilities to use the CERCLA section 103(f)(2)
continuous release reports to meet the EPCRA emergency notification
reporting requirements.  Thus, we calculated the burden and cost
estimates associated with complying with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 only as the burden and cost required to comply with CERCLA
section 103.  The added EPCRA burden and costs are associated with
making 2 additional copies of the reports (one for the State Emergency
Planning Commission, or SERC; and the other for the Local Emergency
Planning Committee, or LEPC).

The final rule does not provide the same level of exemption from
reporting as the proposed rule.  The final rule provides for an
administrative reporting exemption from CERCLA section 103 notification
requirements for hazardous substance releases to the air from animal
waste at farms.  However, the administrative reporting exemption from
EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements is limited in
scope as it provides the exemption for hazardous substance releases to
the air from animal waste at farms that are less in size than a large
CAFO.  For the final rule, we used the size thresholds of a large CAFO
from the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations at 40 CFR 122.23(b)(4).  The change from the proposed rule
impacted the universe of facilities that are subject to EPCRA reporting.
 The changes and the impact of those changes are discussed in the second
section of this economic analysis, “How Does EPA Expect Facilities to
Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at
Farms?”

How does EPA Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304?

This section contains excerpts from the supporting statements of the
Information Collection Requests (ICRs) that are currently approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The excerpts are from the
Renewal of Information Collection Request for Episodic Releases of Oil
and Hazardous Substances – EPA No. 1049.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0046
(for CERCLA section 103(a)); Renewal of Information Collection Request
for Continuous Release Reporting Regulations – EPA No. 1445.06, OMB
Control No. 2050-0086 (for CERCLA section 103(f)(2)); and Emergency
Planning and Release Notification Requirements (EPCRA sections 302, 303,
and 304) (Renewal) - EPA No. 1395.06, OMB Control No. 2050-0092 (for
EPCRA section 304(b)).  

Within the reporting estimates of the ICRs, EPA acknowledges variability
and uncertainty in regards to our estimates of burden and economic
costs.  EPA selected a typical cost and burden estimate from a
statistical distribution of cost and burden and recognizes that cost and
burden may be different for different facilities.

The supporting statements for each of the ICRs can be found in their
entirety in the docket for this rulemaking.  

For the purpose of clarity, some portions of the excerpts have been
edited.  For example, references to reporting releases under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 311 were edited out of this document.  This is
because the final rule only applies to releases of hazardous substances
to the air from animal waste at farms and the exemption is from CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.  These
edits do not affect the baseline estimates for the ICRs and they do not
affect the methodology used to calculate burden and cost estimates. 
Adjustments to the baseline are found throughout the second section of
this report, “How Does EPA Expect Facilities to Report Air Releases of
Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms?” along with a
description of how and why we believe they should deviate from the
baseline.  

CERCLA section 103 (a) – Episodic notification requirements (40 CFR
302.6)

CERCLA section 103(a) requires the person in charge of a facility to
immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous
substance release into the environment if the release quantity equals or
exceeds the substance’s reportable quantity (RQ) level and is not
federally permitted.  The regulated community is expected to:

•	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and
source of the release;

•	Notify the facility manager of the release;

•	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the
release;

•	Report the release to the NRC; and

•	Keep a log of release data, such as the time, date, and
circumstances of the release.  (This information is expected, but not
required under the regulations.)

There are no recordkeeping requirements specified under CERCLA section
103(a) or its implementing regulations.  The person in charge of the
facility, however, may elect to maintain a log detailing the time, date,
and circumstances associated with the reported release.  The purpose of
maintaining a log of reported releases is to track correspondence with
response authorities and to document compliance with release
notification requirements under CERCLA.  Because it is assumed that the
person in charge of the facility will maintain a log of reported
releases, burden and cost estimates associated with recordkeeping are
included in estimates for burden.

Information Requested by the NRC from all Callers (Notification
Activities)

Notification under CERCLA section 103(a) is intended to ensure that
Federal authorities receive prompt notification of hazardous substance
releases for which a timely response may be necessary to protect public
health or welfare or the environment.  The information provided in the
telephone call to the NRC serves to notify government authorities of the
release and provides them with a description of the circumstances
surrounding the release.  The following information is requested from
all callers:

•	The name and location of the individual reporting the release, the
name and type of organization (e.g., general public, industrial
facility, or Federal, State, or local government) with which the
individual reporting the release is affiliated, and the telephone number
of the person reporting the release;

•	The name and location of the releaser, the type of organization
responsible for the release, and the telephone number of the releaser;

•	The location of the release;

•	The date and time of the release;

•	The name and type of material involved in the release, and the
quantity of the substance released;

•	The source of the release, …, and a brief description of the
source;

•	The environmental medium affected by the release (e.g., air);

•	The cause of the incident (e.g., natural phenomenon), and a brief
description of the release scenario denoting any unusual circumstances
associated with the release;

•	Information on damages that occurred as a result of the release,
including the number of injuries, number of deaths, and any property
damage;

•	A description of the response actions taken at the release site, if
any;

•	The name(s) and type of organization(s) that the caller has already
notified; and

•	Any additional comments or information regarding the release.

Agency Activities Upon Receipt of Information

Each hazardous substance release reported by the regulated community to
the NRC is evaluated by Federal authorities.  The appropriate Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is notified of a release by a telephone call
from the NRC.  The NRC conveys all the relevant information regarding
the release to the OSC, including whether the release is to air, the
source of the release, and the type of substance released.  The
telephone call from the NRC to the OSC occurs within 15 minutes of the
original release notification.  The OSC is responsible for evaluating
the circumstances surrounding the release to determine whether
government monitoring and/or a Federal response action may be necessary.

NRC personnel are also responsible for entering release information into
the NRC data base.  The release data are stored in the NRC data base,
the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), a national data base
that stores release information by facility.  The data can be accessed
through the NRC web site:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html"  http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html .
 The primary activity of the Federal government under the regulations
implementing CERCLA section 103(a) is processing and recording the
reported release information, and responding to releases that may pose a
significant hazard to public health or welfare or the environment.

Estimating the Burden and Cost of CERCLA section 103(a) Notifications

Facility Burden Estimate

Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the unit burden hours associated with
reporting a typical release to the NRC.  The burden associated with the
first collection activity in Exhibit 1, “Initial Telephone Call to the
NRC,” includes the burden of gathering of data on the release,
notifying the facility manager of the release, and consulting with an
environmental compliance expert regarding the release.  EPA has
estimated that the respondent’s burden hours for reporting a typical
release is 4.1 hours.

Exhibit 1 - Unit Burden Hours for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC

Collection Activity	Burden Hours	Total Burden Hours

 	Managerial	Technical	Clerical	 

Initial Telephone Call to the NRC	1	1	0	2

Recordkeeping	0.1	1	1	2.1

Total	1.1	2	1	4.1



Initial Telephone Notification (Facilities)

In estimating the burden to industry that the regulations implementing
CERCLA section 103(a) may impose, EPA has assumed that the
respondent’s initial telephone notification to the NRC regarding a
release requires approximately one hour of technical personnel time and
one hour of managerial time.  Therefore, EPA assumes two burden hours
for the initial telephone notification.

Recordkeeping (Facilities)

Although CERCLA does not require that records of releases be kept, EPA
assumes that a facility will keep a log of any calls made to government
organizations.  Such a log will be useful for managers in establishing
that the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103(a) were met. 
The log may include a description of the incident and its cause; the
NRC/ERNS report number, a brief account of any conversations with
Federal officials, and a description of the outcome of the incident,
including any cleanup action taken.  The burden associated with internal
recordkeeping is estimated at one technical hour and one clerical hour
per release.  Further, a ratio of one-tenth managerial hour to each hour
of clerical time is also assumed.  Therefore, EPA assumes 2.1 burden
hours per release for recordkeeping.

Facility Cost Estimate

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated unit costs that a facility may experience
when reporting a typical release to the NRC.  For a typical release, EPA
has estimated that it costs the respondent $122.23 to report the release
to the NRC and record the release data in the respondent’s log.

Exhibit 2 - Unit Cost for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC

Collection Activity	Burden Hours	Unit Capital/Start Up Cost	Unit O&M
Cost	Total Unit Cost/ Reportable Release

	Managerial ($/hr)	Technical ($/hr)	Clerical ($/hr)





$50.41	$22.60	$21.58



	Initial Telephone Notification to the NRC	1	1	0	$0.00 	$0.00 	$73.01 

Recordkeeping	0.1	1	1	$0.00 	$0.00 	$49.22 

Total	1.1	2	1	$0.00 	$0.00 	$122.23 



Response Actions (Facilities)

Under section 103(a) of CERCLA, facilities responsible for a release are
required to take appropriate action to clean up the release.  However,
because there is no paperwork burden associated with these response
actions, the capital and labor costs associated with response actions
have not been calculated.

Labor Costs (Facilities)

The estimated cost to a responding facility for evaluating a release and
calling the NRC regarding the release are a function of the time
expended by the facility’s personnel, and the hourly wage rates for
the appropriate categories of labor.  The hourly wage rates used for
industry are from December 2006 and were obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.  For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimated an
average hourly respondent labor cost of $50.41 for managerial staff,
$22.60 for technical staff, and $21.58 for clerical staff.

These rates reflect the employer cost for employee compensation in the
United States as of December 2006 and include both employer costs for
legally required benefits (e.g., social security, worker’s
compensation, and unemployment insurance), other important fringe
benefit categories (e.g., insurance, paid leave, retirement and
savings), and overhead and general and administrative costs.

Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs (Facilities)

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to
provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other
equipment.  EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital
costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of this
regulation.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are those costs associated with
paperwork requirements incurred continually over the life of the ICR. 
EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur O&M costs in
carrying out the information collection requirements.

Government Burden and Cost Estimate

Exhibit 3 shows the burden hours and costs for processing a telephone
notification by the government.  Federal government authorities are
expected to perform the following activities under the episodic release
notification regulation:  

•	Process respondent telephone notifications of a release;

•	Monitor cleanup activities, as needed; and 

•	Conduct field response actions, as needed.  

EPA estimates that only the first Federal government activity listed
above, “process telephone notifications,” will involve the
processing of submitted paperwork.  EPA has assumed that the Federal
government average hourly labor cost is $43.17.

Exhibit 3 - Government Burden Hours and Costs for Processing a Telephone
Notification

Collection Activity	Unit Burden Hours	Unit Capital/Start Up Cost	Unit
O&M Cost	Total Unit Cost/ Reportable Release

Processing Telephone Notification	1	$0.00 	$0.00 	$43.17 



Processing Telephone Notifications (Government)

The total burden of processing a telephone notification of a release
consists of the time the NRC uses to:

•	Communicate with the respondent, 

•	Record and enter the information provided in the telephone call into
the NRC data base, and 

•	Contact the predesignated EPA or Coast Guard OSC or other parties by
telephone.  

EPA has estimated that one hour is needed to complete all the activities
associated with processing an initial telephone notification. 
Therefore, the unit cost associated with processing an initial telephone
call is $43.17 (1 hour x $43.17 per hour = $43.17).

The notification requirements final rule has been in effect since April
4, 1985. 

CERCLA section 103 (f)(2) – Continuous release reporting requirements
(CRRR) (40 CFR 302.8)

As described above, CERCLA section 103(a) requires persons in charge of
a facility to immediately notify the NRC of any hazardous substance
release that equals or exceeds its RQ and is not federally permitted. 
Notification under CERCLA is intended to provide Federal authorities
receive prompt notification of hazardous substance releases for which a
timely response may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or
the environment from any adverse effects that may be associated with the
release.  Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides relief from the
“per-occurrence” notification requirements of section 103(a) for
hazardous substance releases that are “continuous,” and “stable in
quantity and rate,” provided that such releases are reported
“annually, or at such time as there is any statistically significant
increase” in the quantity of the release.  Section 103(f)(2)
contemplates that, in the case of certain “continuous” and
“stable” releases, the notification objectives of CERCLA can be
achieved with less frequent reporting.  The regulated community is
expected to:

•	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and
source of the release;

•	Notify the facility manager of the release;

•	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the
release;

•	Make an initial report of the release to the NRC; 

•	Submit an initial written notification to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office for the geographical area where the releasing facility
or vessel is located;

•	Provide follow-up notification within 30 days of the first
anniversary date of the initial written notification;

•	Make notifications to the NRC if there is a change in the release,
including a statistically significant increase in a release;

•	Make an annual evaluation of releases to determine if changes have
occurred in the information submitted in the initial written
notification, the follow-up notification and/or in a previous change
notification - if there are no changes, submittal of a report is not
required.

•	Keep all supporting documents, materials, and other information on
file for a period of one year to substantiate the reported normal range
of releases, the basis for stating that the release is continuous and
stable in quantity and rate, and the other information in the initial
written report, the follow-up report, and the annual evaluations. 

The continuous release final rule has been in effect since September 24,
1990.

Information Requested for Continuous Release Reports (Notification
Activities)

To ensure that government authorities receive timely and sufficient
information to evaluate potentially dangerous hazardous substance
releases reported under CERCLA section 103(f)(2), the continuous release
reporting requirements (CRRR) requires seven types of notification
activities:

•	An initial telephone call to the NRC;

•	An initial written report to the EPA Region;

•	A one-time follow-up written report to the EPA Region on or before
the first-year anniversary of the submission of an initial written
report;

•	An annual evaluation of a release beginning the year after the
submission of the one-time follow-up written report;

•	Notification to the NRC and EPA Region of a change in the sources,
composition, or frequency of a release;

•	Notification to the EPA Region of a change in other information
previously submitted; and

•	Immediate notification to the NRC of any statistically significant
increase (SSI) in the quantity of a release.

The time required by a facility to complete the seven information
collection activities varies and is largely contingent on the nature of
the reported release and the facility’s information collection
procedures.  However, EPA estimated the average amount of time that is
needed to perform these seven information collection activities and the
average unit burden hours. 

Agency Activities Upon Receipt of Information/Collection Methodology and
Management (Government)

To facilitate collection and storage of information on continuous
releases, EPA developed CR-ERNS.  CR-ERNS is an information management
system that serves as the depository for continuous release information
received by the EPA Regions.  CR-ERNS is designed to assist EPA Regional
personnel in managing continuous release information and establishing
priorities with respect to the review and evaluation of continuous
release reports.  The reports submitted to the EPA Regions include the
initial written report, the follow-up report, and changes in release
reports.  Additionally, the NRC immediately notifies the appropriate EPA
Region of any SSI reports. 

Estimating the Burden and Cost of CERCLA section 103(f)(2) Continuous
Release Reports

Reporting continuous releases represents a reduction in burden for
facilities that would otherwise report releases on a per-occurrence
basis.  EPA believes that the notification system developed under the
CRRR represents the minimum level of reporting necessary for the Federal
OSC to evaluate whether a response action is needed to prevent or
mitigate any hazards to public health and welfare and the environment. 
The following paragraphs briefly describe the purpose and timing of each
information collection activity and list the data items that comprise
each notification.

Facility Burden Estimate

Exhibit 4 provides the unit burden hours that a facility could spend for
each of the activities involved in making a continuous release report.

Exhibit 4 - Unit Burden Hours per Facility Information Collection
Activity

Collection Activity	When Collection Activity is Performed	Percentage of
Continuous Releases that Will Require a Collection Activity	Unit Burden
Hours



	Mgt	Tech	Clerical	Total

Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	When first reporting a
release	100% of new releases	1.0	2.0	0.0	3.0

Preparing an Initial Written Report	 Within 30 days of an initial
telephone notification	100% of new releases	3.0	4.0	1.0	8.0

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report	A year after the submission of an
initial written report	100% of all second year releases	3.0	1.0	1.0	5.0

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	Each year beginning the
year after the submission of a written follow-up report	100% of all
third year and subsequent year releases	3.0	1.0	1.0	5.0

Reporting a Change in the Sources, Composition, or Frequency of a
Release	When the sources, composition, or frequency of a release changes
	5% each year of all new and current releases	4.0	4.0	1.0	9.0

Reporting Other Changes in Information	Changes in other information 	10%
each year of all new and current releases	1.0	1.0	0.5	2.5

Reporting an SSI in a Release	Immediately after an SSI event is noticed 
5% each year of all new and current releases	1.0	1.0	0.0	2.0

Other Activities – Providing Additional Information	Upon EPA request
30% each year of all new and current releases	4.0	0.0	0.0	4.0

Other Activities – Facilitating a Site Inspection	Upon EPA request	1%
each year of all new and current releases	4.0	4.0	0.0	8.0

Record keeping	Each year of a release	100% of all new and current
releases	0.0	4.0	0.0	4.0



Exhibit 5 presents the estimated annual burden hours incurred for a
“typical” facility.  The typical facility, or respondent, is assumed
to report eight continuous hazardous substance releases in year one and
to have a change in one release in the second and third years of
reporting (e.g., the frequency of the release increases from three to
five times a week, causing a modification in the estimated annual
release amount).  The assumption of eight continuous hazardous substance
releases is a conservative estimate to account for multiple hazardous
substance releases from varying sources or rates of release.  No other
conditional activities (e.g., SSI reporting and facilitating a site
inspection) are assumed to be required of the typical respondent as the
inclusion of burden estimates associated with any additional conditional
activities may result in a significant overestimation of the burden
incurred by a typical facility.

Exhibit 5 - Burden Hours for a Typical Facility

Collection Activity	First Year Burden Hours	Second Year Burden Hours
Third Year Burden Hours

 	Mgt	Tech	Clerical	Total	Mgt	Tech	Clerical	Total	Mgt	Tech	Clerical
Total

Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	8.0	16.0	0.0	24.0	NA	NA	NA
0.0	NA	NA	NA	0.0

Preparing an Initial Written Report	24.0	32.0	8.0	64.0	NA	NA	NA	0.0	NA
NA	NA	0.0

Preparing a Follow–up Written Report	NA	NA	NA	0.0	24.0	8.0	8.0	40.0	NA
NA	NA	0.0

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	NA	NA	NA	0.0	NA	NA	NA	0.0
24.0	8.0	8.0	40.0

Reporting Other Changes in Information	NA	NA	NA	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.5	2.5	1.0
1.0	0.5	2.5

Record keeping	0.0	32.0	0.0	32.0	0.0	32.0	0.0	32.0	0.0	32.0	0.0	32.0

Total Burden Hours for a Typical Facility	32.0	80.0	8.0	120.0	25.0	41.0
8.5	74.5	25.0	41.0	8.5	74.5



Initial Telephone Notification to the NRC (Facilities)

The initial telephone call to the NRC serves to notify government
authorities of the facility’s intent to report a hazardous substance
release under CERCLA section 103(f)(2).  All such releases must be
released in a continuous and stable manner.  The initial telephone call,
in conjunction with the initial written report, fulfills the statutory
requirement that the release be reported under CERCLA section 103(a) for
a period sufficient to establish the continuity, quantity, and
regularity of the release.  The information provided in the initial
telephone notification includes:

•	The name and location of the facility; and

•	The name(s) and identity(ies) of the hazardous substance(s) being
released.

In providing the initial telephone notification, facilities incur a
one-time, first-year burden of notifying the NRC that a hazardous
substance release is reported under CERCLA section 103(f)(2).  Providing
the required information by telephone to the NRC is estimated to require
15 minutes (0.25 hours) of management time.  Prior to the telephone
call, however, the facility must determine if the release is continuous
and stable in quantity and rate as defined in the CRRR.  This
determination is estimated to require 45 minutes (0.75 hours) of
management time and two hours of technical time.  Forty-five minutes
(0.75 hours) of management time and two hours of technical time should
be sufficient to determine if a release is continuous because facilities
likely to be affected by the CRRR should be familiar with the reporting
requirements of CERCLA section 103.  In total, the burden associated
with the initial telephone call is expected to be three hours.

Initial Written Report and the Follow-up Written Report (Facilities)

The initial written report and the follow-up written report, which are
sent to the EPA Region, provide a full description of the release.  The
initial written report and follow-up written report serve as the basis
for an evaluation of the hazards posed by the release.  Based on this
evaluation, government authorities determine if a response action is
necessary to prevent or mitigate any adverse effects.  The initial
written report is submitted within 30 days of the initial telephone
call.  This 30-day period does not necessarily provide enough time to
collect all relevant and appropriate data, but does allow for an initial
evaluation of the release.  The follow-up written report, due no later
than one year after submission of the initial written report, serves to
verify the information provided on the initial written report.  (NOTE:
There cannot be any form of change in source, composition, or frequency
of release without going through the process again.)  The follow-up
written report helps ensure that the information used to evaluate the
hazards posed by the release is current and provides accurate
information.

The data elements requested in the initial written and follow-up report
are the same and consist of:

•	The name of the facility or vessel; the location, including the
longitude and latitude; the case number assigned by the NRC or EPA; the
Dun and Bradstreet number of the facility (if available); the port of
registration of the vessel (if applicable); and the name and telephone
number of the person in charge of the facility or vessel. [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(i)]

•	A signed statement that the hazardous substance release described is
continuous and stable in quantity and rate under the definitions of 40
CFR 302.8(b) and that all reported information is accurate and current
to the best knowledge of the person in charge. [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(iv)(H)]

•	The population density within a one-mile radius of the facility or
vessel, described in terms of the following ranges: 0-50 persons, 51-100
persons, 101-500 persons, 501-1,000 persons, and more than 1,000
persons. [40 CFR 302.8(e)(1)(ii)]

•	The identity and location of sensitive populations and ecosystems
within a one-mile radius of the facility or vessel (e.g., elementary
schools, hospitals, retirement communities, or wetlands). [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(iii)]

In addition, facilities must provide the following substance-specific
information for each continuous release:

•	The source(s) of the release, including specific source information.
[40 CFR 302.8(e)(1)(iv)(C)]

•	The environmental medium(a) affected by the release: if air, provide
… surface area affected; …. [40 CFR 302.8(e)(1)(iv)(G)(1-4)]

•	The frequency of the release and the fraction of the release from
each release source and the period over which it occurs. [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(iv)(D)]

•	A brief statement describing the basis for stating that the release
is continuous and stable in quantity and rate. [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(iv)(E)]

•	The name and identity of the hazardous substance and the Chemical
Abstracts Service Registry Number for the substance.  If the release is
a mixture, also need to provide the hazardous substance components of
the mixture and their approximate concentrations and quantities, by
weight. [40 CFR 302.8(e)(1)(iv)(A)]

•	The upper and lower bounds of the normal range of the release over
the previous year. [40 CFR 302.8(e)(1)(iv)(B)]

•	An estimate of the total annual amount of the hazardous substance
released in the previous year (in pounds or kilograms). [40 CFR
302.8(e)(1)(iv)(F)]

The burden associated with providing the initial written report is also
a one-time, first-year cost.  Much of the information required for the
initial written report (e.g., facility identification, hazardous
substance identification, frequency and source of the release) is
readily available to the facility.  Information such as the composition
of the release and the environmental media affected, however, may
require more extensive consideration and analysis.  In addition, some
time is needed to organize and format the required information into a
report suitable for submission to the government.  It is assumed that
many facilities will use EPA’s prepared report format to minimize
report organization and formatting efforts.  Reporting requirements and
sample forms are available in pdf format on EPA’s internet:  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/release/faciliti.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/release/faciliti.htm . 
Preparation of the initial written report that uses EPA’s prepared
report format is estimated to require three hours of managerial time,
three hours of technical time, and one hour of clerical time.  To
account for the burden spent by the facilities that do not use EPA’s
prepared report format, EPA has increased the technical burden to four
hours.  The costs of photocopying and mailing this report and all other
reports to the appropriate EPA Region are discussed below.  Preparation
of the initial written report is estimated to require three hours of
managerial time (including one-hour of legal review), four hours of
technical time, and one hour of clerical time.  Thus, the total burden
associated with the initial written report is expected to be eight
hours.

Within one year of submitting the initial written report, facilities
must submit a one-time follow-up written report to the appropriate EPA
Region.  The follow-up report requires the same information as the
initial written report, but serves to confirm, update, and refine the
information provided in the initial report based on release data from
the previous operating year.  Because some of the technical information
gathered for preparation of the initial written report, such as the
source of the release and specific information describing the
environmental media affected remains unchanged, preparation of the
follow-up report requires less technical time than preparation of the
initial written report.  EPA estimates that preparation of the follow-up
report is expected to require three hours of managerial time, one hour
of technical time, and one hour of clerical time.  In total, the burden
associated with the follow-up written report is expected to be five
hours.  The burden associated with the follow-up written report is
incurred in the second year of reporting.

Annual Evaluation of a Release (Facilities)

Although a reporting facility is not required to submit a written report
on its continuous releases after submitting the one-time written
follow-up report verifying the information provided in the initial
written report remained the same, the reporting facility must conduct
and document an annual assessment of its continuous releases beginning
the year after the submission of the follow-up written report.  The
purpose of the annual evaluation is to identify any changes that may
have occurred in the release situation over the preceding year.  The
annual evaluation of a continuous release helps ensure that the
information used to evaluate the hazards posed by the release is current
and accurate information.

Although the written follow-up report is prepared and submitted only
once, facilities are required to conduct and document an annual
evaluation of each hazardous substance release reported under CERCLA
section 103(f)(2) beginning the year after submitting the follow-up
written report.  This annual evaluation is comparable to the review and
information collection necessary for preparation of the follow-up
report, although the information is not submitted.  The burden
associated with the annual evaluation, therefore, is assumed to be the
same as the burden of preparing the written follow-up report (expected
to be five hours).  The burden associated with the annual evaluation is
incurred in the third and all subsequent years.

Change in the Source, Composition or Frequency of a Release Report
(Facilities)

If there is a change in the source, composition, or frequency of a
release, the release must be reported and treated as a new continuous
release because the associated hazard may have changed significantly. 
An initial telephone notification and written change report is provided
as described above.  The person in charge also must submit a follow-up
report within one year of the change report.  

Changes in the source(s), composition, or frequency of a release are
expected to result only from significant changes in the production
process, such as the installation of new equipment or a change in the
chemical nature of the process.  While such significant changes are
expected over the long-term, the likelihood of such a change occurring
in a particular year is small.  EPA estimates that the number of already
reported continuous releases that have a change in source(s),
composition, or frequency is about 5 percent of the total number of
hazardous substance releases being reported under the CRRR in any given
year.

          

For facilities that have a change in the source(s), composition, or
frequency of a continuous release, much of the information from the
previous initial written report (e.g., facility identifiers, the media
affected) should not have changed.  It is assumed that the technical
time required evaluating the release, determining whether it is stable
in quantity and rate, and accurately documenting the composition of the
release and the environmental media affected would take four hours.  The
number of management and clerical hours required to report a new
continuous release are assumed to be four hours and one hour
respectively.  Thus, the total burden associated with reporting a change
in the sources, composition, or frequency of a continuous release is
expected to be nine hours.

Other Changes in Information (Facilities)

Facilities that have a change in a continuous release that invalidates
information previously submitted on the continuous release must notify
the appropriate EPA Region by letter within 30 days of the change.  The
letter regarding the change in the release should explicitly identify
the new (or changed) information and include an explanation for the
change.  For example, a facility would need to notify EPA if any
schools, hospitals, retirement homes, or other developments housing
sensitive populations are open within one mile of the facility.

For changes other than a change in the source(s), composition, or
frequency of a release, the person in charge must notify the EPA Region
by letter that the information previously submitted in support of a
continuous release notification is no longer valid.  For example, the
population density in the vicinity of the facility would be reported by
submitting a letter detailing the change and its cause.  Such changes in
information previously submitted are likely to occur over an extended
period of time, but are much less likely to occur every year. 
Therefore, EPA estimates that, on an annual basis, approximately 10
percent of the releases reported under CERCLA section 103(f)(2) will
have a change that requires submission of a letter to the EPA Region. 
Gathering and reporting this information by a letter to the EPA Region
is estimated to require one hour of managerial time, one hour of
technical time, and one-half hour of clerical time for an expected total
burden of 2 and one-half hours.

Statistically Significant Increase (SSI) Report (Facilities)

The CRRR defines a SSI as a release of a hazardous substance that
exceeds the upper bound of the normal range of the release as
established by the facility.  The normal range of a release is defined
by the range of release weights (in pounds or kilograms) recorded during
the preceding year under normal operating conditions (that is,
conditions that prevail during the period establishing the
predictability and regularity of the release).  Therefore, a SSI does
not include releases within the reported normal range of the release. 
An SSI release is considered an episodic release because it is a release
above the RQ.  Thus, SSIs must be immediately reported to the NRC by
telephone pursuant to the notification requirements of CERCLA section
103(a).  The information collected by the NRC in a SSI report includes
the same information supplied when reporting any other episodic release
(e.g., quantity of the release, source of the release, and a description
of any response actions taken).

The person in charge of a facility with a SSI may modify the previously
established normal range as an alternative to reporting multiple SSIs. 
To modify the normal range of the release over a 24-hour period under
normal operating procedures, the person in charge of the facility must
report at least one SSI to the NRC as an episodic release (to facilitate
immediate evaluation), and then must submit a written change report of
the release information to the appropriate EPA Region describing the new
normal range and reasons for the change; thus treating the SSI as a new
release.  Thus, for example, if a facility doubles its production level
thereby doubling its release level, the facility may want to double its
reported normal range of the continuous release, rather than reporting
multiple SSIs.  The person in charge also must submit a follow-up report
within one year of the submission of the change report

As soon as the person in charge of a facility has knowledge that the
quantity of a continuous release being reported under CERCLA section
103(f)(2) exceeds the upper bound of its previously established normal
range of release weights, the person in charge must notify the NRC. 
SSIs are episodic release events because the release has not been
previously reported or evaluated.  EPA estimates that reporting of an
SSI requires one hour of managerial time and one hour of technical time
for an expected total burden of two hours.  The technical time consists
of determining if the release is reportable, briefing management, and
collecting the information required for NRC reporting.  The managerial
time includes alerting appropriate personnel and transmitting the
information required in the telephone call.

Because SSIs are defined as releases that exceed the normal range, and
the normal range is defined to include all release quantities recorded
during the previous operating year, EPA estimates that no more than
about 5 percent of the hazardous substance releases reported under the
CRRR will have a SSI in a given year.

Other Activities (Facilities)

In response to the government’s processing and evaluating the initial
and follow-up reports, persons in charge of facilities may be required
to: 

•	Provide additional information or clarify information previously
submitted; and 

•	Accompany EPA personnel during a site inspection.

Providing Additional Information – For some percentage of the
continuous releases reported under the CRRR, the information provided in
the initial and/or follow-up reports will be incomplete, incorrect, or
raise questions, prompting EPA to request additional information
regarding the nature and extent of the release.  For example, EPA may
seek additional information concerning release activity in order to
better assess the risk posed by the release.  EPA estimates that
approximately 30 percent of the initial/follow-up reports could require
submission of additional information or some level of interaction with
EPA in the first and second years of reporting.  Beginning in the third
year of reporting, requests for additional information and further
clarification of release information are assumed to be necessary only
for newly reported releases.  However, this analysis conservatively
assumes that the percentage of reportable releases for which additional
information is necessary will remain at 30 percent for all years of
reporting.  For each hazardous substance report that requires additional
communication with EPA, industry is expected to expend four hours of
managerial time.

Facilitating a Site Inspection – In rare cases, the preliminary risk
assessment of a release will indicate the need for a site inspection,
allowing EPA to directly assess and evaluate the circumstances of a
release and the population and environment potentially affected by the
release.  In addition, site inspections are conducted periodically as a
compliance and enforcement measure.  Site inspections are estimated to
be necessary for no more that one percent of the reported continuous
releases.  EPA estimates that facility participation in a site
inspection requires four hours of managerial time and four hours of
technical time for an expected total burden of eight hours.

Recordkeeping (Facilities)

Facilities may maintain a log or some other record of each hazardous
substance release reported under CERCLA section 103(f)(2).  The
information documented in the record can be used to demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of the CRRR, including the requirement to
demonstrate the continuity and stability of the release and the
requirement to conduct an annual evaluation of the release. 
Additionally, facilities may find it useful to document daily release
quantities for use in substantiating and modifying the normal range of
the release.

Although not required, EPA believes many facilities maintain a log or
some other record of each hazardous substance release reported under the
CRRR.  Facilities may find it useful to collect and record the following
information for use in demonstrating compliance with the provisions of
CERCLA §103(f)(2): 

•	Estimates of daily release quantities to demonstrate the continuity
and stability of the release, and to establish and modify the normal
range of the release; 

•	Documentation of the methodology and calculations used in estimating
required information; and 

•	Documentation of the annual assessment required each year subsequent
to submission of the follow-up written report.  

Much of the time necessary to gather these records has already been
attributed to the preparation of the initial and follow-up reports;
however, it is expected that an additional four hours of technical time
is will be necessary for keeping records on each hazardous substance
release reported under the CRRR.

Facility Cost Estimate

Labor Costs

Exhibit 6 presents the unit labor costs to the responding facility of
performing the notification, recordkeeping, and other activities that
may be required in reporting a continuous release to the Federal
Government.  

Exhibit 6 - Unit Labor Cost per Respondent Information Collection
Activity

Collection Activity	Burden Hours	Unit Labor Cost

	Managerial/hr	Technical/hr	Clerical/hr



$50.41 	$22.60 	$21.58 

	Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	1.0	2.0	0.0	$95.61 

Preparing an Initial Written Report	3.0	4.0	1.0	$263.21 

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report	3.0	1.0	1.0	$195.41 

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	3.0	1.0	1.0	$195.41 

Reporting a Change in the Sources, Composition, or Frequency of a
Release	4.0	4.0	1.0	$313.62 

Reporting Other Changes in Information	1.0	1.0	0.5	$83.80 

Reporting an SSI in a Release	1.0	1.0	0.0	$73.01 

Other Activities – Providing Additional Information	4.0	0.0	0.0
$201.64 

Other Activities – Facilitating a Site Inspection	4.0	4.0	0.0	$292.04 

Record keeping	0.0	4.0	0.0	$90.40 



The unit cost of each collection activity is calculated by multiplying
the annual burden hour estimates in Exhibit 4 by the hourly wage rate
for the appropriate labor category.  The estimated cost to complete
various continuous release reports required under the CRRR is a function
of the time expended by facility personnel and the hourly wage rates for
the appropriate categories of labor.  The hourly wage rates used are
from December 2006 and were obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.  For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average
hourly respondent labor cost of $50.41 for managerial staff, $22.60 for
technical staff, and $21.58 for clerical staff.

These rates reflect employer cost for employee compensation in the
United States as of December 2006 and include both employer costs for
legally required benefits (e.g., social security, worker’s
compensation, and unemployment insurance), other important fringe
benefit categories (e.g., insurance, paid leave, retirement, and
savings), and overhead and general and administrative costs.

Exhibit 7 presents the annual labor cost estimated to be incurred by a
typical responding facility.

Exhibit 7 - Annual Labor Costs for a Typical Facility

Collection Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Labor Costs

	Managerial/hr	Technical/hr	Clerical/hr	First Year	Second Year	Third
Year

	$50.41 	$22.60 	$21.58 



	Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	8	16	0	$764.88 	NA	NA

Preparing an Initial Written Report	24	32	8	$2,105.68 	NA	NA

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report	24	8	8	NA	$1,563.28 	NA

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	24	8	8	NA	NA	$1,563.28 

Reporting Other Changes in Information	1	1	0.5	NA	$83.80 	$83.80 

Record keeping	0	32	0	$723.20 	$723.20 	$723.20 

Total Labor Costs for a Typical Facility	 	 	 	$3,593.76 	$2,370.28 
$2,370.28 



Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to
provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other
equipment.  EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital
costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of the
CRRR.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs are those costs associated with
paperwork requirements incurred continually over the life of the ICR.

Exhibit 8 presents the unit O&M costs per responding facility.

Exhibit 8 - Unit Operating and Maintenance Costs per Respondent
Information Collection Activity

Collection Activity	Unit O&M Costs 	Total Unit O&M Cost per Report

	Photocopying ($/pg)	Mailing ($/report)



$0.25 	$5.42 

	Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	$0.00 	$0.00 	$0.00 

Preparing an Initial Written Report (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$5.42 	$6.67 

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$5.42 	$6.67 

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	$0.00 	$0.00 	$0.00 

Reporting a Change in the Sources, Composition, or Frequency of a
Release (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$0.00 	$1.25 

Reporting Other Changes in Information (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$5.42 	$6.67 

Reporting an SSI	$0.00 	$0.00 	$0.00 

Other Activities – Providing Additional Information (10pgs/1rpt)	$2.50
	$5.42 	$7.92 

Other Activities – Facilitating a Site Inspection	$0.00 	$0.00 	$0.00 

Record keeping (5pgs)	$1.25 	$0.00 	$1.25 



Exhibit 9 presents the O&M costs for a typical responding facility.

Exhibit 9 - Operating and Maintenance Costs for a Typical Facility

Collection Activity	Unit O&M Costs	Total Unit Cost

	Photocopying ($/pg)	Mailing ($/rpt)	First Year	Second Year	Third Year

	$0.25 	$5.42 



	Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	$0.00 	$0.00 	NA	NA	NA

Preparing an Initial Written Report - 8 rpts @ (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$5.42 
$53.36 	NA	NA

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report - 8 rpts @ (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 	$5.42
	NA	$53.36 	NA

Reporting Other Changes in Information - 1 rpt @ (5pgs/1rpt)	$1.25 
$5.42 	NA	$6.67 	$6.67 

Record keeping - 8 rpts @ (5pgs/1 rpt)	$1.25 	$0.00 	$10.00 	$10.00 
$10.00 

Total O&M Costs for a Typical Facility	 	 	$63.36 	$70.03 	$16.67 



Exhibit 10 presents a summary of the unit costs for both the Annual
labor and O&M that may be incurred by the regulated entities.

Exhibit 10 - Unit Labor and Operating and Maintenance Costs per
Respondent Information Collection Activity

Collection Activity	Unit Labor Cost	Unit O&M Cost	Total Unit Costs

Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	$95.61 	$0.00 	$95.61 

Preparing an Initial Written Report	$263.21 	$6.67 	$269.88 

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report	$195.41 	$6.67 	$202.08 

Conducting an Annual Evaluation of a Release	$195.41 	$0.00 	$195.41 

Reporting a Change in the Sources, Composition, or Frequency of a
Release	$313.62 	$1.25 	$314.87 

Reporting Other Changes in Information	$83.80 	$6.67 	$90.47 

Reporting an SSI in a Release	$73.01 	$0.00 	$73.01 

Other Activities – Providing Additional Information	$201.64 	$7.92 
$209.56 

Other Activities – Facilitating a Site Inspection	$292.04 	$0.00 
$292.04 

Record keeping	$90.40 	$1.25 	$91.65 



Exhibit 11 presents the total labor and O&M costs for a typical
responding facility.  This exhibit does not include capital costs
because we believe that there are no capital costs associated with
implementing the regulations of the CRRR.

Exhibit 11 - Labor and Operating and Maintenance Costs for a Typical
Facility

Collection Activity	Total Labor Costs	Total O&M Costs	Total Costs

	First Year	Second Year	Third Year	First Year	Second Year	Third Year
First Year	Second Year	 Third Year

Providing an Initial Telephone Notification	$764.88 	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
$764.88 	NA	NA

Preparing an Initial Written Report	$2,105.68 	NA	NA	$53.36 	NA	NA
$2,159.04 	NA	NA

Preparing a Follow-up Written Report	NA	$1,563.28 	NA	NA	$53.36 	NA	NA
$1,616.64 	NA

Conducting Annual Evaluations	NA	NA	$1,563.28 	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	$1,563.28 

Reporting Other Changes in Information	NA	$83.80 	$83.80 	NA	$6.67 
$6.67 	NA	$90.47 	$90.47 

Record keeping	$723.20 	$723.20 	$723.20 	$10.00 	$10.00 	$10.00 
$733.20 	$733.20 	$733.20 

Total Costs for a Typical Facility	$3,593.76 	$2,370.28 	$2,370.28 
$63.36 	$70.03 	$16.67 	$3,657.12 	$2,440.31 	$2,386.95 



O&M costs are the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O&M or
purchasing services.  O&M costs cover photocopying of report templates
to be filled out for each release source (25 cents per page) and postage
and an envelope for reports sent to the Agency.  There are no O&M costs
associated with providing the initial telephone notification to the
Agency or reporting an SSI under the CRRR.  Each written report, the
initial written report, the follow-up written report, changes in
source(s), composition, or frequency of the release report, and reports
on other changes in information, are assumed to require five pages. 
Requests for additional information by the Agency will vary considerably
in scope and length, depending on the nature of the request; however, it
is estimated that it will take industry approximately 10 pages to
complete the Agency’s request.  The postage and mailing costs are
assumed to be equal for all documents, and are calculated as $5.12
postage and $0.30 per envelope, totaling $5.42 per report.  

Government Burden and Cost Estimate

Each of the notification reports submitted by industry is processed and
evaluated by Federal authorities.  For some continuous releases
evaluated under the CRRR, EPA may request additional (supplemental)
information or clarification of information previously submitted by a
facility.  EPA may use this information to conduct a more in-depth risk
assessment of the release.  In some rare cases, the in-depth risk
assessment may not allay EPA’s concerns and EPA may decide to conduct
a site inspection to review the circumstances associated with the
release first-hand.  Additionally, site inspections may be conducted
periodically as a compliance and enforcement measure.  Thus, the Agency
performs the following other activities as a result of continuous
releases reported under CERCLA section 103(f)(2):

•	Request additional information; and 

•	Conduct site inspections.

Estimates of the burden hours incurred by the Federal government are
developed based on estimates of the time expended in processing the
notification reports required under the CRRR (e.g., the initial written
report, SSI notification) or completing another activity (e.g.,
additional information, site inspection), as opposed to developing
estimates for each work element (e.g., reviewing data, entering data,
filing, evaluating a release, storing evaluation results) involved in
completing all of the required activities.  

To comply with the provisions of the CRRR, Federal government
authorities perform the following activities:  

• 	Process initial telephone notification; 

• 	Process initial written report; 

• 	Process follow-up written report; 

• 	Process change in the source(s), composition or frequency of
release reports; 

• 	Process other changes in information; 

• 	Process SSI reports; and 

• 	Conduct other necessary activities (obtain additional information,
conduct site inspection). 

Exhibit 12 presents the estimated burden-hours and unit cost associated
with the Federal government’s processing and evaluation of the various
continuous release reports, as well as the burden and cost associated
with any other government initiated activities that may involve the
collection of information.  The unit cost estimates are derived by
multiplying the applicable burden estimates by the average hourly wage
rate for government employees.  Based on the 2007 GS pay schedule, EPA
estimates an average hourly labor cost of $43.17 for the average Federal
government employee.  A full description of the basis for each
government burden estimate is provided in the remainder of this section.

Exhibit 12 - Unit Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by the Government per
Information Collection Activity

Collection Activity	Burden Hours ($/hr)	Unit Cost

	$43.17

	Process Initial Telephone Notification	0.50	$21.58 

Process Initial Written Report	1.50	$64.75 

Process Follow-up Written Report	1.50	$64.75 

Process a Change in the Source(s), Composition, or Frequency of a
Release Report	2.00	$86.34 

Process Other Changes in Information	0.50	$21.58 

Process an SSI Report	1.25	$53.96 

Other Activities – Obtaining Additional Information	2.00	$86.34 

Other Activities – Conducting a Site Inspection	8.00	$345.34 



Process Initial Telephone Notifications (Government)

EPA estimates that the NRC will need 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to process
the information provided in the initial telephone call.  Therefore, the
first year unit cost associated with processing the initial telephone
call is $21.58.

Process Initial Written Report (Government)

Government authorities review initial written and follow-up reports to
become familiar with the nature and extent of the release, to determine
if the release qualifies for reduced reporting under CERCLA section
103(f)(2), and to assess the hazards to public health and welfare and
the environment.  EPA estimates that the preliminary evaluation of the
release is expected to be, on average, one and one half hours of
government time.  The costs of processing and evaluating the initial
written report are incurred in the first year of reporting.  Therefore,
the unit cost for processing and evaluating the initial written report
is $64.75.

Process Follow-up Written Report (Government)

Within one year of submitting the initial written report, facilities
need to submit a written follow-up report to update and confirm
previously submitted information.  The follow-up report provides EPA
with a more accurate baseline against which to evaluate both the threat
posed by the release and the impact that SSIs in the release may have on
public health and welfare and the environment.  The activities necessary
to reevaluate the continuous release with the newly submitted follow-up
report are assumed to be the same as those expected to process and
evaluate the initial written report, one and a half hours.  Therefore,
the unit cost for processing and evaluating the follow-up written report
is $64.75.  However, the costs associated with the follow-up written
report are incurred in the second year of reporting.

Process a Change in the Source(s), Composition, or Frequency of a
Release Report (Government)

After initial notification reports have been submitted for a release and
reporting under section 103(f)(2) has commenced, EPA must be notified of
any changes in release information previously submitted.  Any change in
the source(s), composition, or frequency of a hazardous substance
release constitutes a new release.  Thus, any facility experiencing a
change in the source(s), composition, or frequency of a continuous
release need to complete the initial notification process for the new
release.  Government activities associated with new release reports
consist of the processing and evaluation of the initial telephone and
initial written reports, expected to be 2 hours.  The applicable unit
cost is $86.34 per new continuous release report.

Process Other Changes in Information (Government)

For changes in a release other than a change in the source(s),
composition, or frequency, the person in charge is to notify the EPA
Region by submitting a letter presenting the updated information and
explaining the reasons for the change.  EPA estimates that processing a
letter of changed information is expected to need approximately 30
minutes (i.e., 0.50 hours) of government time.  This estimate consists
of the time necessary to evaluate the release in light of the changed
information.  The shorter evaluation time is assumed because it is
necessary to evaluate only the incremental change in the risk using
previous assessments of the release (assumed to be on file) as a
baseline.  The applicable unit cost is $21.58 per changes in a release
report.

Process an SSI (Statistically Significant Increase) Report (Government)

SSIs are episodic releases that are reported immediately to the NRC. 
Release quantities in excess of the normal range have not been
previously reported and evaluated and, thus, warrant immediate
reporting.  Upon receiving notification of an SSI, the NRC will record
the SSI information in the NRC data base (expected to be 15 minutes) and
notify the appropriate EPA Region of the SSI report (expected to be 30
minutes).  Upon notification from the NRC, EPA will evaluate the
potential hazard posed by the release in light of the SSI (expected to
be 30 minutes).  Thus, the Federal government is estimated to expend one
hour and fifteen minutes (1.25 hours) of government time to process and
evaluate each SSI reported under the CRRR.  The applicable cost is
$53.96 per SSI Report.

Other Activities (Government)

For some percentage of continuous releases, the information provided in
the initial and/or follow-up reports will be incomplete, incorrect, or
raise questions, prompting EPA to request additional information
concerning the release and its associated hazard.  For example,
additional information may be necessary to confirm the continuity and
stability of the release or to better assess the risk posed by the
release.  EPA estimates that the process of requesting and reviewing
additional information concerning a continuous release is expected to be
2.0 hours of government time.  The applicable unit cost is $86.34 per
request and review of additional information.

In rare cases, the preliminary risk assessment of a release will suggest
the need for a site inspection, allowing EPA to directly assess and
evaluate the circumstances of a release and the population and
environment potentially affected by the release.  In addition, site
inspections are conducted periodically as a compliance and enforcement
measure.  EPA estimates that site inspections are expected to take eight
hours of government time, including one hour allocated for the EPA
Region to communicate its concerns and findings to the appropriate SERC
and LEPC, and will cost $345.34.

EPCRA section 304(b) – Reports to SERCs and LEPCs (40 CFR 355.42) 

Under EPCRA section 304(b), facilities are required to notify the SERC
and the LEPC of releases above the RQ of any CERCLA hazardous substance
or EPCRA extremely hazardous substance (EHS).

Information Requested for EPCRA Reports to the SERCs and LEPCs

The notice includes the following information, to the extent that it is
known:

•	The chemical name or identity of any hazardous (or extremely
hazardous) substance involved in the release;

•	An indication of whether the hazardous substance is on the list of
EHSs;

•	An estimate of the quantity of any such hazardous (or extremely
hazardous) substance that was released into the environment;

•	The time and duration of the release;

•	The medium or media into which the release occurred;

•	Any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated
with the emergency and, where appropriate, advice regarding medical
attention necessary for exposed individuals;

•	Proper precautions to take as a result of the release, including
evacuation (unless such information is readily available to the
community emergency coordinator pursuant to the emergency plan); and

•	The name and telephone number of the person or persons to be
contacted for further information.

In addition, the facility provides a written follow-up report that
includes the information above and any additional information on the
release, including:

•	Actions taken to respond to and contain the release;

•	Any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated
with the release; and

•	Where appropriate, advice regarding medical attention necessary for
exposed individuals.

To comply with EPCRA section 304, the facility needs to determine when
an EHS or a CERCLA hazardous substance is being released and if the
quantity of the chemical released is greater than the RQ.  (See 40 CFR
355.33.)  That information is to be provided in the initial telephone
notification to the SERC and LEPC. The material safety data sheet (MSDS)
or other information that the facility has would provide the health
risks and medical information, as well as response information.

The written follow-up notice needs to be filed "as soon as practical
after a release." This notice documents and updates the information
provided in the initial notification.  Because the initial notification
should be provided immediately after the discovery of the release, the
written follow-up notice allows the facility more time to determine with
greater precision the information provided in the initial notification. 
The facility may include a copy of its own internal report of the
circumstances of the accident.

SERC and LEPC Activities Upon Receipt of Information

EPCRA section 324(a) requires that the written follow-up notice required
under section 304(c) be made available to the public.  This written
notice required under section 304(c) is a follow-up to the notification
required under EPCRA section 304(b).  EPCRA section 304(a) describes the
types of releases that are required to be reported under EPCRA section
304(a).

Estimating the Burden and Cost of EPCRA section 304 Notifications

Exhibit 13 presents the estimated unit burden by labor category for each
of the tasks performed by facilities required under 40 CFR Part 355. 
[Note:  The baseline does not include an estimate for the burden and
cost associated with the SERCs and LEPCs receiving, filing, and making
the notifications available to the public.  We have estimated that
burden and cost in Section II, “How Does EPA Expect Facilities to
Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at
Farms?”]

Exhibit 13 – Section 304 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Estimated Unit Burden and Cost

 

Facility Burden Estimate

Read and Understand Regulations (Facilities)

EPA assumes that only newly regulated facilities incur the cost of
reading and understanding regulations at 40 CFR Part 355.  Under the
current ICR for this regulation and based on the most recent census
data, we do not expect that there will be new facilities that need to
come into compliance.  Therefore, EPA did not estimate any burden for
this activity for new facilities.  All currently regulated facilities
are already (or should be) familiar with the regulations and the burden
for this activity was estimated in previous ICRs.

Emergency Release Notifications (40 CFR 355.42) (Facilities)

The number of annual RQ releases is based on the number of CERCLA
hazardous substance releases reported to the NRC.  EPA estimates that 90
percent of RQ releases require notifying SERCs and LEPCs, and 10 percent
require notifying the 911 operator.  All reportable releases require a
written follow-up report. 

The burden per respondent for initial notification is expected to be
approximately 0.50 hours, and for the written follow-up report, it is
expected to be approximately 4.35 hours.

Facility Cost Estimate

Estimating Respondent Costs (Facilities)

Estimating costs to respondents on an annual basis is accomplished by
multiplying the respondent burden estimates for each labor category by
the corresponding labor rate for that category.  Unit costs for each
respondent or activity are then multiplied by the number of respondents
or activities performed on an annual basis to yield a total cost for
each information collection activity.

EPA estimates an hourly respondent labor cost for manufacturing facility
respondents as $129.29 for managerial staff, $39.97 for technical staff,
and $23.38 for clerical staff, including wages and benefits. Hourly
respondent labor costs for non-manufacturing facility respondents are
estimated at $84.26 for managerial staff, $38.78 for technical staff,
and $22.19 for clerical staff.  Legal review is estimated at $116.17 and
$112.49 per hour for manufacturing and non-manufacturing facilities,
respectively.   A weighted average was developed based on the percentage
of manufacturing and non-manufacturing facilities.  These weighed
averages are reflected in the hourly rates shown in Exhibit 13. 

Government Burden and Cost Estimate

Because the SERCs and LEPCs are only required to make the section 304(c)
follow-up reports available to the public and there is no Federal
regulation that implements that requirement, the Agency has not
developed an estimated burden associated with this activity.  However,
the economic analysis does estimate that the SERCs and LEPCs will spend
approximately 15 minutes of clerical time to file the reports so that
they are available to the public.  That estimate is included in the
calculations found in Section II – “How Does EPA Expect Facilities
to Report Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at
Farms?” below.

The emergency planning and release notification requirements final rule
has been in effect since April 22, 1987. 

How Does EPA Expect Facilities to Report Air Releases of Hazardous
Substances from Animal Waste at Farms?

Assumptions

This section includes differences between the DRAFT and FINAL Economic
Analyses.  Because EPA decided to limit the administrative reporting
exemption for EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements for
air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste to those farms
that are below the size threshold of a large CAFO, some additional
assumptions were required.  The additional assumptions will be addressed
throughout this section as they logically arise.

EPA assumes that facilities will utilize the continuous release
reporting regulation to report air releases of hazardous substances from
animal waste at farms.  We make this assumption because the releases are
on-going and a part of daily operations at a farm.  While there can be
some spikes in the level of releases of hazardous substances
occasionally throughout the year, we believe that they can be reasonably
predicted based on the overall operations at the farm.  Facilities will
be required to demonstrate that the emissions from animal waste at their
facility are continuous and stable in quantity and rate.  Continuous
release reporting is designed to reduce the burden from the
“per-occurrence” notification requirements of section 103(a) of
CERCLA.  As such, the Agency believes that if facilities can demonstrate
that their releases are “continuous” and “stable in quantity and
rate,” that they will chose to report those releases as continuous and
submit reports in accordance with 40 CFR 302.8.  

For the purpose of this economic analysis the Agency assumes that
facilities would utilize continuous release reporting rather than making
daily notifications to the NRC; therefore, the burden and costs
associated with the CERCLA section 103(a) notification requirements
(i.e., episodic notifications) are not included in estimates regarding
the impact of this regulation on farms.  Notifications to the SERCs and
LEPCs under EPCRA section 304 are considered; however, because
facilities can utilize the same reports submitted under CERCLA section
103(f)(2) continuous release reporting, estimates for preparing the
EPCRA section 304 reports were also not included.  The costs of copying
and mailing the CERCLA section 103(f)(2) continuous release reports were
factored into the estimate to account for those mailings to the SERCs
and LEPCs.  For this estimate, a typical facility is assumed to make one
continuous release report per year, as opposed to the eight reports that
are estimated for the “typical” facility in the baseline ICR
calculations (see Exhibit 5, above).  That is, because animal waste is
the only source of air emissions of hazardous substances that is exempt
in this final rule, facilities could use one report submission to
account for all hazardous substances emitted from that source.

The baseline estimate for SERC and LEPC burden and cost described in the
above, Section I – “How does EPA Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304?” does not include the burden and
cost associated with receipt and making available to the public the
notifications made under EPCRA section 304.  However, this Section does
take that activity into account and estimates that the SERCs and LEPCs
will spend approximately 15 minutes of clerical time, for each
notification received, to file the reports so that they are available to
the public.

B.	Universe

The universe of facilities used in the economic analysis for the
proposed rule was estimated by starting with the universe from the 2003
CAFO Rule and extending estimated growth projections out to the year
2018.  This enabled us to have a 10 year burden and cost estimate for
the proposed rule.  Because the basic assumptions in the universe of the
2003 CAFO Rule did not change in the 2008 CAFO Rule (final), we did not
change the base or the estimated growth projections for the FINAL
Economic Analysis.  

Exhibit 14 - Estimated Universe of Facilities

 

The DRAFT Economic Analysis used the 2003 CAFO rule universe in its
calculations.  Since that rule was finalized (2008 CAFO rule), we are
using the 2008 CAFO universe in this FINAL Economic Analysis.  However,
the universe did not change between the 2003 and 2008 CAFO rules.  The
Agency used the 2008 CAFO rule universe(s) because the public should be
familiar with the methodology used to develop this universe.  However,
it should also be noted that we are not suggesting that this is the
actual universe of facilities that may be impacted by either the
proposed or the final reporting exemptions, including any determination
regarding the size of a facility that could trigger CERCLA section 103
and/or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.  

The final rule limited the number of farms that are eligible for the
EPCRA section 304 administrative reporting exemption to those farms that
releases hazardous substances to the air from animal waste where the
size threshold for the farm is less than a large CAFO.  Thus, for the
FINAL Economic Analysis, we have used the “medium CAFOs” to
represent those farms that are eligible for the EPCRA section 304
administrative reporting exemption.  Although all farms that release
hazardous substances to the air from animal waste are eligible for the
CERCLA section 103 administrative reporting exemption, the complete
exemption will be realized by the “medium CAFOs.”  This is due to
our assumption that facilities will chose to utilize the continuous
release reporting, rather than episodic reporting, even if they are only
reporting to the SERCs and LEPCs.  The Federal government will realize
the full benefit of the CERCLA section 103 administrative reporting
exemption because it will not receive those reports.

Sections C (CERCLA section 103(f)(2) – Continuous release reporting
for air emissions of hazardous substances from animal waste) and D
(EPCRA section 304 – Continuous release reports to SERCs and LEPCs of
hazardous substance releases to air from animal waste) below, describe
specific burden and cost assumptions that were made in order to estimate
overall burden and costs for each year (2009-2018).  

Tables that were created for the DRAFT Economic Analysis are found in
Appendix D (Industry2009 through Industry 2018), Appendix E
(Government2009 through Government 2018) and F (SERC-LEPC2009 through
SERC-LEPC2018).  Tables that were created for the FINAL Economic
Analysis are found in Appendix D2 (Industry2009 through Industry 2018),
Appendix E2 (Government2009 through Government 2018) and F2
(SERC-LEPC2009 through SERC-LEPC2018).

C.        CERCLA section 103(f)(2) and EPCRA section 304(a)
Notifications

The following estimates were made assuming that the facilities
identified in the universe would be in full compliance with CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.  

Facility Burden Estimates

Unit burden estimates for a facility to report under CERCLA section
103(f)(2) (continuous release reporting) were unchanged from those used
in the baseline calculations in the above Section I – “How does EPA
Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304?”  

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average burden to facilities
for reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes
using the continuous release reporting at 343,245 hours over 10 years. 
The FINAL Economic Analysis estimates the average burden to facilities
for reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes
using the continuous release reporting at 129,155 hours over 10 years.

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average costs to the
facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous substances from
animal wastes at farms using the continuous release reporting would be
$16,017,273 over 10 years. The FINAL Economic Analysis estimated the
average costs to the facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal wastes at farms using the continuous release
reporting would be $6,075,613 over 10 years.

The burden and costs associated with rule familiarization are assumed to
be zero.  This is because that burden and costs are captured in the
burden and costs associated with continuous release reporting.

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated that 100 percent of RQ releases
from require notifying LEPCs and SERCs, and 0 percent requires notifying
the 911 operator.  The FINAL Economic Analysis estimates that 100
percent of RQ releases from large CAFOs require notifying LEPCs and
SERCs, and 0 percent requires notifying the 911 operator.

All reportable releases require a written follow-up report.  The
continuous release report submitted under CERCLA section 103(f)(2)
serves as the written follow-up report to the SERCs and LEPCs.

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average burden to the
facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous substance from animal
wastes at farms to the SERCs and LEPCs using the continuous release
reporting would be 2,459 hours over 10 years.  This estimate was
significantly lower than the average estimated burden to the facilities
to report to the Federal Government.  This is because facilities would
send the same continuous release report to the SERCs and LEPCs that they
sent to the Federal Government.  The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated
costs to the facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal wastes at farms to the SERCs and LEPCs using the
continuous release reporting would be $256,539 over 10 years.

The FINAL Economic Analysis estimates the average burden to the
facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous substance from animal
wastes at farms to the SERCs and LEPCs using the continuous release
reporting would be 1,002 hours over 10 years.  This estimate was
significantly lower than the average estimated burden to the facilities
to report to the Federal Government.  This is because facilities would
send the same continuous release report to the SERCs and LEPCs that they
sent to the Federal Government.  The FINAL Economic Analysis estimated
costs to the facilities for reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal wastes at farms to the SERCs and LEPCs using the
continuous release reporting would be $56,384 over 10 years.

The reason for the significant differences in the average burden and
costs to the facilities is due to the limited exemption from EPCRA
section 304 emergency notification requirements.  The average universe
of facilities under the DRAFT Economic Analysis was 28,855 over 10
years; whereas in the FINAL Economic Analysis the average universe is
11,088 over 10 years.

Facility Cost Estimates

Unit labor and O&M cost estimates were increased by 4.5% each year.  For
DRAFT Economic Analysis, assumption for the unit O&M costs was that the
facility will provide a copy of each report that is submitted to three
separate governmental entities (i.e., EPA Regional Office, SERC, and
LEPC).  However, for the FINAL Economic Analysis a copy of each report
is submitted to two separate governmental entities (SERC and LEPC). 
Facilities may use the continuous release reports to meet their
reporting requirements under EPCRA section 304.

Exhibit 15a - Industry Summary/All Years - DRAFT Economic Analysis

 

10 Year Totals (DRAFT Economic Analysis)

 

Exhibit 15b - Industry Summary/All Years - FINAL Economic Analysis

 

10 Year Totals (FINAL Economic Analysis)

 

Burden and Cost Estimates for the Federal Government and SERCs and LEPCs

Unit burden hours and costs incurred by the Federal Government are not
expected to change from the baseline estimates.  Although not part of
the baseline estimates described in Section I – “How does EPA
Measure Reporting Burden for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304?” the Agency has assumed that approximately 15 minutes per report
would be required for the LEPCs to file an incoming report and have that
report available to the public. Even though the SERCs receive the
reports, it is the LEPCs that have the statutory requirement to make the
reports available to the public. 

Exhibit 16a - Government Summary/All Years – DRAFT Economic Analysis

 

10 Year Totals (DRAFT Economic Analysis)

 

Exhibit 16b - Government Summary/All Years – FINAL Economic Analysis

 

10 Year Totals (FINAL Economic Analysis)

 

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average burden to the Federal
Government for receiving reports of air releases of hazardous substances
from animal wastes at farms from the continuous release reporting would
be 15,251 hours over 10 years.  This number did not change in the FINAL
Economic Analysis.

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average costs to the Federal
Government for receiving reports of air releases of hazardous substances
from animal wastes at farms from the continuous release reporting would
be $790,169 over 10 years.  This number did not change in the FINAL
Economic Analysis.

The reason that the average burden and average costs to the Federal
Government did not change from the DRAFT Economic Analysis is because
the exemption from CERCLA section 103 notification requirements remains.
 Since the Federal Government would not receive these reports under the
final rule, nothing has changed.

The SERCs and LEPCs do have a change to the average estimated burden and
costs associated with receiving and making available to the public,
reports of air releases of hazardous substance from animal wastes at
farms.  This is due to the change in the universe eligible for the
reporting exemption.  Because the administrative reporting exemption is
limited under the final rule to those farms that are smaller than a
large CAFO, the SERCs and LEPCs estimated burden and costs over 10 years
is reduced.

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average burden to the SERCs
and LEPCs for receiving and making available to the public, reports of
air releases of hazardous substance from animal wastes from the
continuous release reporting would be 878 over 10 years.  The DRAFT
Economic Analysis estimated the average burden to the SERCs and LEPCs
for receiving and making available to the public, reports of air
releases of hazardous substance from animal wastes from the continuous
release reporting would be 358 over 10 years.  

The DRAFT Economic Analysis estimated the average costs to the SERCs and
LEPCs for receiving and making available to the public, reports of air
releases of hazardous substances from animal wastes from the continuous
release reporting would be $20,746 over 10 years.  The DRAFT Economic
Analysis estimated the average costs to the SERCs and LEPCs for
receiving and making available to the public, reports of air releases of
hazardous substances from animal wastes from the continuous release
reporting would be $8,625 over 10 years.

Conclusions

Potential Impact of the Final Rule on CAFO Reporting

Exhibit 17a - Comparison with OMB Approved ICRs – DRAFT Economic
Analysis

 

Exhibit 17b - Comparison with OMB Approved ICRs – FINAL Economic
Analysis

 

For the purposes of this exhibit, industry represents all industries
(i.e., regulated entities) that currently utilize continuous release
reporting.  The potential impact of the final rule is to avoid an
increase in burden to regulated industries by approximately 36% (95% for
the proposed rule) and an increase in total costs to regulated
industries by 44% (117% for the proposed rule).  The estimated percent
increase to overall industry O&M costs of 221% (612% for the proposed
rule) is an outlier and thus also impacts the estimates for total
industry costs.  The outlier occurs because the costs associated with
copying and mailing reports has increased significantly since the
1445.06 ICR was approved by OMB.  A more reasonable comparison will be
to the 1445.07 ICR which is pending approval by OMB.

If one compares the OMB Approved ICRs, 1445.06 – Continuous release
reporting requirement and 1365.06 – Emergency planning and release
notification requirements, to the Estimate for CAFO Reporting (10 yr
average), then the estimated burden and costs to the Government that
will be avoided by the final rule are 12% and 17% (12% and 18% for the
proposed rule), respectively for an estimated 36% (94% proposed rule)
increase in respondents.  These avoided costs to the Government are
lower than expected because the OMB Approved ICR 1365.06 includes SERC
and LEPC activities that do not apply to the receipt and making
available to the public, continuous release reports submitted under
EPCRA section 304.  A more realistic estimate would compare the OMB
Approved ICR 1445.06 Government Burden of 25,785 and OMB Approved ICR
1445.06 Government Total Cost of $1,046,000 to the Estimates for CAFO
Reporting (10 yr average).  Thus making the Government burden and cost
avoided by the proposed rule 61% and 76% (63% and 78% proposed rule),
respectively.

2.	Sensitivity Analysis

Actual compliance with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304
notification requirements for farms is uncertain.  Anecdotal information
suggests a very small compliance rate.  For this economic analysis we
assumed full compliance with the universe used in our calculations and
shown in Exhibit 14.  Although we do not know what the actual universe
of facilities is; we believe that the compliance levels for this
industry have been minimal.  For example, in 2006 there were
approximately 140 continuous release reports submitted to the Federal
Government for the release of the hazardous substance ammonia, from
animal feeding operations and the majority of those (113) were submitted
as a result of a compliance agreement with the Agency.  The Agency
believes that there have historically been minimal compliance because
facilities were either unaware of their CERCLA and EPCRA notification
obligations or did not believe that the CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 notification obligations applied to their facilities.

With respect to the universe used in our calculations, we assume that
the total number of livestock operations can decrease while the U.S.
market and species specific production has increased.  For example,
broiler meat production could increase 8% every year while the total
number of farms decreases by 11%.  Thus we predict an increase in the
size of the remaining operations.  In other words while the total number
of farms decreases, the average farm size increases. 

List of Appendices

The following appendices are located in separate volumes, by appendix. 
The purpose is to reduce file size.

Appendix A – Regulatory Impact Analysis of Reportable Quantity
Adjustments under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Volume 1, March
1985

Appendix B – Economic Analysis in Support of the Continuous Release
Reporting Regulation Under Section 103(f)(2) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, April 1990

Appendix C – Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of Rulemaking Under
Sections 302, 303, and 304 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, April 1987

Appendix D – Industry Burden and Cost Summary Tables (2009 through
2018) – DRAFT 

Appendix D2 – Burden and Cost Summary Tables (2009 through 2018) –
FINAL

Appendix E – Government Burden and Cost Summary (2009 through 2018) -
DRAFT

Appendix E2 – Government Burden and Cost Summary (2009 through 2018) -
FINAL

Appendix F – Estimated Unit Burden and Cost, EPCRA Section 304 (2009
through 2018) - DRAFT

Appendix F2 – Estimated Unit Burden and Cost, EPCRA Section 304 (2009
through 2018) - FINAL

 The unit cost to make reports to the Federal Government, SERCs and
LEPCs is approximately $2,132 ($2,065 to the Federal Government and $67
to the SERCs and LEPCs) the first year and increases by about 4.5% every
year after that.  However, the unit cost takes into account all of the
possible reporting that could take place over the course of a year.  Not
every farm would experience all of the possible reporting scenarios. 
For example, not every farm would report a change in the source(s),
composition, or frequency of release; report other changes in
information, report a statistically significant increase in release;
provide additional information; or facilitate a site inspection. 

 The unit cost to process the reports made to the Federal Government is
approximately $812 the first year and increases by about 4.5% every year
after that.  Unit costs to receive and make available to the public
reports made the SERCs and LEPCs is approximately $5 the first year and
increases by about 4.5% every year after that.  

 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ news release dated, March 27, 2007,
entitled, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - December 2006”
listed hourly compensation (wages and salaries plus fringe benefits)
rates for civilian managerial, technical, and clerical workers.
Therefore the wage rates used in ICR (1049.11) include salaries, fringe
benefits, overhead costs and general and administrative costs as of
December 2006.

 This hourly wage estimate was calculated by summing the basic hourly
wage rate for a GS-12 step 1 government employee in 2007 ($26.98) and
the hourly monetary value of the representative employee’s fringe
benefits (assumed to be the basic hourly wage rate multiplied by 60
percent).

 See generally, Renewal of Information Collection Request for Episodic
Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances – EPA No. 1049.11, OMB
Control No. 2050-0046, draft supporting statement.

 See generally, Renewal of Information Collection Request for Continuous
Release Reporting Regulations – EPA No. 1445.07, OMB Control No.
2050-0086, draft supporting statement, pg. 1.

 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ news release dated, March 27, 2007,
entitled, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - December 2006”
listed hourly compensation (wages and salaries plus fringe benefits)
rates for civilian managerial, technical, and clerical workers.
Therefore the wage rates used in ICR (1049.11) include salaries, fringe
benefits, overhead costs and general and administrative costs as of
December 2006.

 This assumption was revised for this renewal.  The prior assumption was
$1.70 postage and $0.30 per envelop.  The new costs assume increases
($.87) in postage and that, although not required, most respondents will
mail the reports using certified ($2.40) and return receipt ($1.85)
postal services.

 This hourly wage estimate was calculated by summing the basic hourly
wage rate for a GS-12 step 1 government employee in 2007 ($26.98) and
the hourly monetary value of the representative employee’s fringe
benefits (assumed to be the basic hourly wage rate multiplied by 60
percent).

 This estimate allows for 15 minutes each for the NRC personnel and EPA
personnel to communicate the SSI report.

 See, Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements (EPCRA
sections 302, 303, and 304) – EPA No. 1365.06, OMB Control No.
2050-0092, supporting statement for the burden estimates for this
activity.

 EPA previously estimated that only nine percent of the universe was
manufacturers, based on a ratio of manufacturers to non-manufacturers in
the EPCRA section 311/312 universe.  The number of non-manufacturers,
however, included a large number of facilities that are subject to
311/312 solely because of their production or storage of petroleum
products, which are not subject to section 302.  With these facilities
removed from the non-manufacturing universe of 311/312, the ratio of
manufacturers to the total 311/312 universe is 26 percent.

 See generally, Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements
(EPCRA sections 302, 303, and 304)(Renewal) – EPA No. 1365.06, OMB
Control No. 2050-0092, supporting statement.

 The size thresholds were borrowed from the NPDES large CAFO definition
found at 40 CFR 122.23(b)(4).  The thresholds are as follows:  Farms
that stable or confine fewer than the numbers of animal specified in any
of the following categories:

(1)	700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry

(2)	1,000 veal calves

(3)	1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.  Cattle
includes but is not limited to heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs

(4)	2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more

(5)	10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds

(6)	500 horses	

(7)	10,000 sheep or lambs

(8)	55,000 turkeys

(9)	30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the farm uses a liquid manure
handling system

(10)	125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the farm uses other
than a liquid manure handling system

(11)	82,000 laying hens, if the farm uses other than a liquid manure
handling system

(12)	30,000 ducks (if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system)

 See EPCRA section 324(b).  For this analysis the estimated 15 minutes
should cover the amount of time required to cover the activities of both
the SERCs and LEPCs.  Not, 15 minutes for the SERC and 15 minutes for
the LEPCs.

 In 2005, EPA offered the owners and operators of animal agricultural
operations an opportunity to sign up for an air monitoring study.  The
purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop emissions estimating
methodologies for all animal agricultural operations.   Over 2600 animal
feeding operations, representing over 14,000 farms, signed up for the
study.   The compliance agreement also required that facilities that
confine more than 10 times the “large Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation” threshold of an animal species provide notice to the NRC
and to the relevant SERCs and LEPCs.

December 11, 2008

FINAL Economic Analysis

  PAGE  iv 

Page   PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  49 

Page   PAGE  45  of   NUMPAGES  49 

