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

Reduced record retention time

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

Option to follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance

Replacement of RCRA training requirements with OSHA standards

Editorial changes in rule language

Elimination of recordkeeping and reporting requirements

Decreased inspection frequency

Changes to the requirements for record retention and submittal of records

Changes to the requirements for document submittal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The remainder of the document is organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7 Lists the references used in the analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft; Revision 3 Page 4 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act;

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;

Executive Order 13132: Federalism;

Executive Order 12989: Environmental Justice;

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

Executive Order 12630: Regulatory Takings; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 13132: Federalism; August 4, 1999.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subparts B, D, E, and H).

Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements,

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

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

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

Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications,

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

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

Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.06 and 1189.07

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

Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.17

General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which still requires this activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Certification of closure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no burden reduction was taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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