56992 Federal Repiister/ Vol. 64, No. 204/ Fridav, October 22. 1999/ ProDosed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL 6462 2]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 30 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (" CERCLA" or "the Act"), requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP") ,include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous subskances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (" NPL") constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA" or "the Agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA

, financed remedial action( s) , if any, may i be appropriate. This proposed rule proposes to add 9 new sites to the NPL. All of the sites are being proposed to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be'sybmitted (postmarked) on or before December 2 1, 1999. ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. EPA; CERCLA Docket .Office; (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M Street, SW Washington,

By Express Mail: Send original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; US. EPA; CERCLA Docket Office: 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway; Crystal Gateway #I, First Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

only may be mailed directly to superfund. docket@ epa. gov. E mailed comments must be followed up by an original and three copies sent by mail or express mail. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section 11, "Public Review/ Public Comment," of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble. DC 20460; 703/ 603 9232.

By E Mail: Comments in ASCII format FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YoIanda Singer, phone (703) 603 8835, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424 9346 or (703) 412 9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from I. What is the Construction Completion List (NPL)?

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

(CCL)? 11. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant B. How do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Cominents? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public. Comment Period Is Over? I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? to This Proposed Rule?

111. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL B. Status of NPL A. What is Executive Order 12866? €3. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? IV. Executive Order 12866 V. Unfunded Mandates A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? B. Does UMRA ADD~ V to This Prouosed Rule? .. "

VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What is t$ e Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for This Rule? VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act AUO~ V to This Proposed Rule? 1 1 _I VIlI. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to IX. Executive Order 13045 this Proposed Rule?

A. What is Executive Order 13045? B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to this Proposed Rule? X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule?

What Are The Executive Orders on XI. Executive Orders on Federalism Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Proposed Rule? XI. Executive Order 13084 What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to this Proposed Rule?

I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601 9675 (" CERCLA' or "the Act"), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (" SARA"), Public Law 99 499, 100 Stat. 1613 etseq. B. What Is the NCP?

promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP"), 40CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

105( a)( 8)( A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes "criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such actionfor the purpose of taking removal action." "Removal" actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases (42 U. S. C. 9601'( 23)). '

C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? To implement CERCLA, EPA As required under section The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a) (8) (B) of CERCLA, Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 204/ Friday, October 22, 1999 /Proposed Rules 56993 as amended by SARA. section 105 (a) (8) (B) defines the NPL as a list of "releases" and the highest priority "facilities" and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public, health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48FR40659 (September 8, 1983).

includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA, (the "General Superfund Section"), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the "Federal Facilities Section"). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agdncy is res, ponsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for prepar$ ng an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425( c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores .sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (" HRS"), which EPA promulgated as a appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 5 1532), EPA ,promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105( c), added by SARA, The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible For purposes of listing, the NPL for the NPL: (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(~)( 2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State (see 42 U. S. C. 9605( a)( 8)( B)); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in. the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(~)( 3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: . The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U. S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that. recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

cost effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since, then, most recently on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50459). E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the "Superfund") only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( b)( l). (" Remedial actions" are those "consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *" 42 U. S. C. 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL "does not imply that monies will. be expended." EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws. F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Although a CERCLA "facility" is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has "come to be located" (CERCLA section 10 1 (9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. EPA anticipates that it will be more The NPL does not describe releases in Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release( s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site i s listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release( s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the "boundaries" of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located, or from which that contamination came.

terms are often used to designate the site (e. g., the "Jones Co. plant site") in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property (e. g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e. g.. where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part o€ the "site"). The "site" is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give `the site its name, and the name itselfshould not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of . listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the "Jones Co. plant site," does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the "nature and extent of the probelm presented by the release" will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (" RI/ FS") as more inforriation is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/ FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source( s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the In other words, while geographic 56994 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 204 /Friday, October 22, 1999 / Proposed Rules contamination "has come to be located" before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site.

contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting, information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible pdrty. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release. G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of October 12, 1999, the Agency has deleted 201 sites from the NPL. H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of October 12, 1999, EPA has '

deleted portions of 16 sites. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

construction completion list (" CCL") to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site' on the CCL has no legal significance. , Indeed, the boundaries of the EPA also has developed an NPL Sites qualify for the CCLwhen: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e. g., institutional controls); or (3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Of the 20 1 sites that have been deleted from the NPL, 192 sites were deleted because they have been cleaned up (the other 9 sites were deleted based on deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up). As of `October 12, 1999, there are a total of 670 sites on the CCL. This total includes the 192 deleted sites. For the most up to date information on the CCL, see EPAs Internet site at http:// www. epa. gov/ Superfund. 11. Public Reviewlpublic Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC and in the Regional offices. B. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional dockets after the appearance of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/ 603 9232. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows: Barbara Callahan, Region 1 (CT, ME, M A , NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 2023; 617/ 918 1356 Ben Conetta, Region 2 (NJ, N Y , PR, VI), U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007 1866; 212/ 637 4435 Dawn Shellenberger (GCI), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U. S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19 103; 2 15/ 814 5364. Joellen O'Neill, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS. NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta,

Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management Division 7 J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/

Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U. S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF RA, Dallas,

Carole Long, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/ 551 7224. David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U. S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR SA, Denver, CO 80202 2466; 303/ 312 6757. Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, N V , AS, GU), U. S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 4151 GA 30303; 404/ 562 8127.

886 7570.

TX 75202 2733; 214/ 665 7436.

744 2343. David Bennett, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 1 lth Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL 115, Seattle,

You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the qrdinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets for the proposed site; a Documentation Record for the site describing the information used to compute the score; information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets. E. 'How DO I Submit My Comments?  Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the WA 98101; 206/ 553 2103. Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 204 /Friday, October 22, 1999 /Proposed Rules 56995 addresses differ according to method of comment period. Site specific B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to delivery. There are two different correspondence received prior to the' Executive Order 12866 Review? addresses that depend on whether period Of formal proposal and comment NO, the Office of Management and comments are sent by express mail Or by will not generally be included in the Budget (OMB) has exempted this postal mail. docket. regulatory action from Executive Order F. What Happens to MY Comments? III. `Contents of This Proposed Rule during the comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates support document that EPA Will Publish proposing to add 9 new sites to the NPL; Title II of the Unfunded Mandates concunentl~ with the Federal Register a11 to the General Superfund Section of Reform Act of 1995 (UMm), public document if, and when, the site is listed the NPL. The sites are bekg proposed on a e NPL. G. What Should I Consider When The Sites being Proposed in this rule are their regulatory actions on State, local, Preparing My Comments? presented in Table 1 which fOllows this and tribal governments and the private voluminous reports, or materials B. Status of NPL EPA generally must prepare a written prepared for purposes other than HRS statement, including a cost benefit scoring, should point out the specific A final rule published elsewhere in analysis, for Proposed and final rules information that EPA should consider today's Federal Register finalizes 10 with mandates" that and how it affects individual HRS factor sites to the NPL; resulting i n a n NPLof result in by local, . values or other listing criteria 1,221 final sites; 1,062 in the General and tribal governments* in the (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, Superfund Section and 159 in the or by the private sector, of $100 million 849 F. 2d 1516 (D. C. Cir. 1988)); EPA Federal Facilities Section. With this will not address voluminous comments proposal of 9 new sites, there are now that are not Specifically cited by Page 57 sites proposed and awaiting final uMRA generally re& ires EpA to number and referenced to the HRS or agency action, 52 in the General other listing criteria. EPA will not Superfund Section and 5 in the Federal identify number of and regulatory consider alternatives a reasonable address comments unless they indicate ~~~i l i ~~~ section. ~i ~~l and proposed which component of the HRS sites now total 1,278. (These numbers effective, adopt the or least least costly, burdensome most cost documentation record or what particular point in EPk's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. H. Can I Submit Comments After the the Federal Register.) Public Comment Period Is Over?

late comments. EPA can only guarantee A. What Is Executive Order12866? costly, mostcost effective, or least t h a t will consider those comments burdensome alternative if the postmarked by the close of the formalUnderExecutiveOrder12866, (58 FR Administrator publishes with the final comment period. EpA has a policy of 51735 (October 41 1993)) the ' rule an explanation why that alternative not delaying a final listlng decision must determine whether a regulatory was not adopted. BeforeEPA establishes solely to accommodate, consideration of action is "Significant" and therefore any regulatory requirements that may late comments. subject to OMB review and the significantly or uniquely affect small I. Can I View Public Comments requirements of the ExecutiveOrder. governments, including tribal Submitted by Others? The Order defines "significant governments, it musthave deve1o" ped regulatory action" as one that is likely under section 203 of the UMRA a small During the comment period, to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an government agency plan. The plan must comments are placed in the annual effect on the, economy of $100 provide for notifying potentially Headquarters docket and are available to million or more or adversely affect in a affected small governments, enabling the public on an "as received" basis. A material way the economy, a sector of officials of affected small governments complete set of comments will be the economy, productivity, competition, to have meaningful and timely input in available for viewing in the Regional jobs, the environment, public health or the development of EPA# regulatory docket approGmatelY one week after the safety, or State, local, or tribal proposals with significant Federal formalcomment period closes. governments or communities; (2) create intergovernmental mandates, and J. Can I Submit Cornen& Regarding a serious inconsistency or otherwise informing* educating, and advising Sites Not CurrentlyProposed to the interfere with an action takenor small governments on compliance with NPL? planned by another agency; (3) the regulatory requirements.

ln certain instances, interested parties maferially alter the budgetary impact of B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed have written to EPA concerning sites entltlements, grants, user fees, or loan Rule? which were not at that time proposed to Programs or the rights and obligations of No, EPA has determined that this rule the NPL. If those sites are later proposed recipients thereof; Or (4) raise novel does not c0ntain. a Federal mandate that to the NPL, parties should review their legal Or PolicYiSSueS arising out of legal may result in expenditures of $100 earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, mandates, the President's priorities, or million or more for State, local, and resubmit those concerns for the PrincipIes set forth in the Executive tribal governments in the aggregate, or consideration during the formal Order. by the private sector in any one ye?. 12866 review.

EPA considers all comments received A. Proposed Additions to he NpL V. Unfunded Mandates With today's proposed rule, EPA is Reform Act (UMRA?

Law 104 4, establishes requirements for based on HRS Scores Of 28.50 Or above Federal Agencies to assess the effects of Comments that include complex orpreamble. sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

statement is needed section 205 of the reflect the status of sites as of October alternative that achieves the objectives 12, 1999. Sites deletions may affect of the rule. The provisions of section these numbers at time of publication in 205 do not apply when they are IV. Executive Order 12866 inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to Generally, EPA will not respond to adopt an alternative other than the least 56996 Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 204/ Friday, October 22, 1999/ Proposed Rules This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listhg does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses . result from site specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the 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 (SBREFA) of 1996) 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 (Le., 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended. the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 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. B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for This Rule?

the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to predict. A site's No. While this rule proposes to revise inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also be affected.

the sites in this proposed rule on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement and cost recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site by site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a similar case by case basis. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this proposed regulation does. not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?

Section 12( d) of the National The Agency does expect that placing Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? NO. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. VIII. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? Under Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations," as well as through EPAs April 1995, "Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental justice Task Force Action Agenda 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 df the United States. The Agency's goals axe 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, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities. B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, no action will result from this proposal that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population. IX. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045?

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under E. O. 12866, and (2) 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. B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to E. O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by E. O. 12866, and because the Agency Executive Order 13045: "Protection of Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 204/ Friday,, October 22, 1999 /Proposed Rules 56997 ,does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information. that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by . OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). `B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?

.does not apply because this rule does not. contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

XI. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are The Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Proposed Rule? Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If According to the Paperwork No. EPA has determined that the PRA EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates."

mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1 (a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proposed rule. On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order on federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999),) which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 4168'5 (October 30, 1987),) on federalism still applies. This proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect #on 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 126 12. This proposed rule will not result in the imposition of any additional requirements on any State, local governments or other political subdivisions within any State. Accordingly, the requirements. of This proposed rule does not create a section 6( c) of Executive Order 12612 do not apply to this proposed rule.

XII. Executive Order 13084 What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to this Proposed Rule?

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. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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 gavernments, 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 permitting 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."

significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule. This proposed rule does not . TABLE 1 . NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 30, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name CA .................

Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery ....................................................................................................... UT ................. Macalloy Corporation ........................................................................................................................... SC ................. Centredale Manor Restoration Project ................................................................................................ RI .................. Scorpio Recycling, Inc. ........................................................................................................................ PR ................. Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. ...................................................................................................... NY ................. JacksonSteel ...................................................................................................................................... NY ................. Marion Pressure Treating .................................................................................................................... LA ................. TransCircuit, Inc. ................................................................................................................................ FL .................. LeviathanMine ....................................................................................................................................

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 9. Cityhunty Alpine County. Lake Park. Marion. MineolalNorth Hempstead. Port Jefferson Station. Candeleria Ward. North Providence. North Charleston. Bountiful.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Intergovernmental relations, Natural requirements, SuDerfund, Water Environmental protection, Air resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, poilution control: Water supply. Reporting and recordkeeping pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); 42 U. S. C. substances, Hazardous waste, 9601 9657; E. O. 12777,56 FR 54757,3 CFR, 56998 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 204 /Friday, October ._ . 22, 1999 /Proposed Rules 1,991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580,52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: October 15, 1999. Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 99 27538 Filed 10 21 99; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560 504 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 710 [OPPTS 82053& FRL 6388 I]

RIN 2070 AC61 '

TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency @PA) . ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of ,comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule to amend the TSCA Inventory Update Rule OUR) published on August 26, 1999. In response to several requests, the comment period is being extended by 60 days until December 24, 1999. The comment period for the proposed rule was scheduled to close on October 25, 1999. Under section 8( a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA currently requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances and mixtures on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory to report current data regarding production volume, plant site information, and site limited status. The proposed rule requires the reporting of additional data that would assist EPA in evaluating potential exposures and risks resulting from industrial chemical operations and commercial and consumer uses of cfiemical substances. The proposed, rule also modifies reporting and recordkeeping requirements, removes one reporting exemption and creates others, and modifies confidential business information (CBI) reporting and retention procedures. Infdrmation from the proposed IUK Amendments will help both EPA and the public better identify and mitigate potential exposures and risks associated with TSCA chemicals. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPPTS 82053, must be received by EPA on or before December 24, 1999. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION." To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identlfy docket control number OPPTS 82053 in the subject line of the first page of your response.

general information contact Christine M. Augustyniak, Associate Director, Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 554 1404, TDD: (202) 554 0551; e mail: TSCA Hotline@ epa. gov. For technical information contact Susan Krueger, Project Manager, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division (7406), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460: telephone: (202) 260 1713, fax: (202) 260 1661; e mail: krueger. susan@ epa. gov.

I. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by. this action if you manufacture or import chemical substances and mixtures currently subject to reporting under the Inventory Update Rule OUR) at 40 CFR part 710 or manufacture or import inorganic chemical substances. In the past, processors of chemical substances have not been required to comply with the requirements at 40 CFR part 710. The proposed amendments do not change the status of processors under the regulations at 40 CFR part 710. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Category NAICS Chemical ers and im porters Potentially Reg Examples of ulated Persons Chemical man ufacturers (in cluding im porters) cur rently subject to IUR report ing Chemical man ufacturers (in cluding im porters) of in organic chemical sub stances This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in. 40 CFR part 710. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT." 11. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or Other Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain elecironic copies of this document and various support documents from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. On the Home Page select "Laws and Regulations" and then look up the entry for this document under the "Federal Register Environmental Documents." You can also go directly to the "Federal Register" listings at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. In addition, electronic copies of this document and various support documentsmay be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ iuramend. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS 82053. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as CBI. This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE B607, Waterside Mall,` 40 1 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260 7099. III. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

As described in Unit LC. of the proposed rule published in the Federal


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I would also like to emphasize that I strongly support reasonable regulations regarding all electronic cigarette products to ensure that Americans have access to the safest products possible. However I do have some concerns with a few points in the legal language regarding hardware approval and the chilling effects on innovation and small business potentially putting e-cigs largely in the hands of big tobacco who we know have a long history of dubious ethical practices.

Anecdotally, vaping has improved my health dramatically and my doctor wholeheartedly agrees. Some have been able to get away from nicotine altogether, while I, for the time being, rely on e-cigs as a much safer alternative to smoking. I am also a hobbyist and do some device engineering at my home as well as mixing my own flavored nicotine fluids. I would be destitute if new regulations prevented me from this current practice and am afraid these FDA proposals could lead to a situation that could drive me back to smoking. A very thorough, deliberate analysis and discussion is in order.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Best Regards,

Robert Love


INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EPA WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, EPA #1426.10

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION              1(a)  Title       EPA Worker Protection Standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (Renewal)       ICR # 1426.10, OMB # 2050-0105

	1(b)  Short Characterization

	This information collection request (ICR) addresses the information requirements for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) worker protection standards for hazardous waste operations and emergency response under section 126(f) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).  SARA section 126(a) requires the Secretary of Labor to promulgate health and safety standards pursuant to section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response.  Section 126(b) lists eleven worker protection provisions that the Secretary of Labor was directed to include in the regulation (see attached copy of Section 126 of SARA, PL 99-499).  These provisions include preparation of various written programs, plans, and records, monitoring of airborne hazards, training of employees, medical surveillance, and the dissemination of information to employees.  Certain aspects of these provisions necessitate the collection of information by employers whose employees are engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response.  These final standards do not specify any particular method of information collection.                                         	The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated final health and safety standards for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response on March 6, 1989 (54 FR 9294); these OSHA regulations (known as HAZWOPER) are codified at 29 CFR 1910.120.  The OSHA final regulations contain standards for all private employees, and for Federal employees through Executive Order 12196.  Under section 18 of the OSH Act, OSHA may delegate worker protection programs to State authorities.  The State program, however, must be at least as stringent as the Federal OSHA program.  There are currently 23 States plus the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico that have delegated OSHA programs.  In these 23 States (known as State-plan States), State and local government employees also are covered by the State worker protection standards.  Thus, in State-plan States, Federal, State, and local government employees, as well as private employees, are covered by worker protection standards at least as stringent as the Federal OSHA standards.

	Section 126(f) of SARA required EPA to promulgate standards identical to those promulgated by OSHA pursuant to SARA section 126(a), to protect State and local government employees in States without delegated programs.  The EPA regulation, which references the OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.120, is codified at 40 CFR 311 (54 FR 26654; June 23, 1989).  Because the substance of the EPA standards is identical to the OSHA worker protection standards, the EPA standards also include provisions that require the collection and dissemination of information, and therefore are subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

      1(c)  Terms of Clearance:              Following the renewal of ICR 1426.08, OMB gave the following Terms of Clearance (TOC):               "When this ICR is renewed, EPA should review the respondent burden, universe, response number, labor rates, and capital costs and ensure these estimates have been updated."        An extension to June 2009 was granted under ICR 1426.09 due to the difficulty in deriving an accurate assessment of a portion of the population affected by this ICR, volunteer fire fighters. An extension was granted in order for EPA to more fully and effectively research data related to the ICR. This ICR 1426.10 reflects updated burden estimates and a decrease of 56,203 hours from the previous ICR.  As the program has matured and stabilized, the computer programs by which records are input and maintained have greatly advanced, making the burden estimate decrease from the previous ICR.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	SARA section 126(a) requires the Secretary of Labor to issue health and safety standards under section 6 of the OSH Act for the benefit of private sector employees, and through the Presidential Executive Order 12196, 2/26/80, Federal employees -- engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response.  Federal OSHA has no authority to enforce regulations protecting State and local government employees.  However, under section 18 of the OSH Act, a State may elect to develop and implement its own occupational safety and health program if:  (1) the State is willing to document its program in a State plan, and (2) the State's requirements are at least as stringent as the Federal regulations.

	SARA section 126(f) requires the EPA Administrator to issue standards for hazardous waste operations and emergency response that are identical to OSHA's standards.  Although the two sets of standards contain identical substantive provisions, EPA and OSHA address different audiences.  EPA's authority extends to State and local government employers conducting hazardous waste operations and emergency response in States that do not have a delegated OSHA program in effect.  Currently, 27 States, one territory, and the District of Columbia fall under EPA's authority.  (See Exhibit 1)  The EPA regulations cover both compensated and uncompensated State and local government employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response.

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

	This information will be used by EPA to ensure that employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response are trained and informed properly about potential hazards associated with hazardous waste operations at their workplace or during an emergency response.  Fire fighters are the largest group of State and local government employees covered by the EPA worker protection standards.  These standards, and the information collection and dissemination provisions they contain, will help ensure that these workers, along with other first responders, will be able to recognize and respond to incidents involving hazardous substances.  The medical surveillance provisions will help to ensure that any ill effects from exposure to hazardous materials will be identified early, thus mitigating the potential severity of the illness.  Failure to conduct this collection of information will significantly affect EPA's effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities in the affected workplaces, and would be contrary to the direction provided in SARA by the U.S. Congress.  EPA will use this information to audit hazardous waste operations and emergency response activities and to pursue potential enforcement actions related to worker health and safety.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	EPA coordinated the preparation of the final rule with the appropriate individuals in OSHA.  Although the EPA and OSHA section 126 standards are identical, the employers and employees affected by the EPA standards differ from those affected by the OSHA standards.  The OSHA standards apply to all Federal and private employees.  The OSHA standards also indirectly cover State and local government employees in States that have implemented OSHA-approved plans; these public employees are actually protected through the State standards that must be at least as stringent as the Federal OSHA standards.  The EPA standards apply to State and local government employees in States that do not have OSHA-approved plans; there are 27 such States and 2 territories.  Therefore, it is not anticipated that any duplication with OSHA will result from the implementation of the EPA worker protection standards.

	The EPA worker protection standards also do not duplicate provisions and requirements imposed by other regulations, including regulations implementing Title III of SARA.  In fact, the worker protection provisions complement the provisions in SARA Title III (also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act).  EPA's Title I worker protection standards focus on worker safety, while Title III plans focus on community safety.  To the extent that Title III emergency response plans satisfy the EPA worker protection planning requirements, they may be incorporated into the Title I plans by reference.

      3(b) Public Notice	              On May 25, 2012 (77FR31352), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). There were several comments received that were mistakenly assigned to this docket (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0007) and did not apply to this ICR.               3(c)  Consultations

	In addition to EPA program and regional offices, representatives of OSHA and State agencies participated in the Workgroup meetings.  Participation of these parties in the Workgroup was sufficient to address and resolve all issues.  OSHA representatives were able to provide other members of the Workgroup with information on the content and schedule for OSHA's final worker protection standards.  State representatives provided guidance on how to avoid problems associated with the implementation of the EPA final standards.  There were no major problems that could not be resolved.  Opportunity for public comment was provided in the proposed rule published on October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40692).

Non-EPA Agencies Consulted

OSHA 	 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

New Jersey State Department of Health

New York State Department of Health

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The information collection frequencies specified in the final standard are the minimum amount necessary to protect workers engaged in hazardous waste operations or emergency response.  Less frequent collections would render the final rule ineffective and be in violation of SARA.  Furthermore, EPA had no discretion and was required to promulgate identical standards to those promulgated by OSHA. Still, no collected information is required to be submitted to EPA.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	The information collection requirements do not exceed any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	The final rule does not require the submittal of confidential information.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions 	 	The final rule does not request any sensitive information.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

	This rule affects State and local governments in the 27 States and 2 territories that do not have OSHA-approved plans under section 18(b) of the OSH Act.  (See Exhibit 1 for a list of States, territories, and districts covered by the EPA standards.)

	EXHIBIT 1

	STATES, TERRITORIES, AND DISTRICTS COVERED BY STATES, TERRITORIES AND DISTRICTS COVERED BY THE EPA WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS

State Population (in thousands) Alabama 4,779 Arkansas 2,915 Colorado 4,939 Delaware 897 District of Columbia 601,723 Florida 18,01 Georgia 9,687 Guam 106 Idaho 1,567 Illinois 12,803 Kansas 2,853 Louisiana 4,533 Maine 1,328 Massachusetts 6,547 Mississippi 2,967 Missouri 5,911 Montana 989 Nebraska 1,826 New Hampshire 1,316 New Jersey 8,791 North Dakota 641 Ohio 11,485 Oklahoma 3,642 Pennsylvania 12,702 Rhode Island 1,052 South Dakota 814 Texas 6,346 West Virginia 1,852 Wisconsin 5,686

      Sources:	U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Estimates, 2012.

The population affected by the EPA final worker protection standards includes State and local governments with employees: (1) engaged in routine hazardous waste operations at treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);(2) engaged in clean-ups at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, including corrective actions at RCRA TSD facilities; and (3) engaged in emergency response without regard to location.

	4(b)	Information Requested

		(i)	Data Items

	The EPA worker protection standards (40 CFR 311) require that affected State and local governments whose employees engage in hazardous waste operations and emergency response, establish a written worker safety and health program that delineates the methods and procedures that will be used to protect employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response.  This program is generic (i.e., not site-specific), and would be developed once and then periodically reviewed and updated.  The program must address issues such as training, medical surveillance, and planning, providing a general approach for complying with the specific worker protection standards.  Other requirements in the EPA worker protection standards, however, are site- or employee-specific (e.g., medical surveillance), and tend to require recurring activities on the part of affected employers.

	This ICR requests only the collection of information for on-going respondent activities.  It is assumed for the purposes of this ICR that the following activities, as required by the EPA worker protection standards, have already been completed, and are thus not included in this ICR:  development of a written safety and health program; development of a medical surveillance program; development of a generic decontamination plan; and development of an employee training program.  Affected State and local government employers, however, must continue to collect and maintain information related to the following regulatory requirements that are included in this ICR:

		Site-specific health and safety plans (HASPs)  (for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and RCRA corrective actions);

            	Air Monitoring data (for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and RCRA corrective actions);

	 	Annual employee medical exams;

		Annual employee refresher training;

            	Emergency response plans; and

            	Engineering control, work practices and personal protective equipments (PPE) plans.

		(ii)	Respondent Activities

	EPA assumes that all affected State and local governments developed the following plans and procedures during the first year of the EPA worker protection standards:  health and safety programs (not including the site-specific HASPs); site control procedures; medical surveillance programs; decontamination programs; and employee training programs.  EPA assumes that the burden and costs associated with developing these plans and programs have been incurred already and attributes to this ICR only the burden associated with on-going activities.  For the purposes of this ICR, on-going activities include:

		Developing and updating site-specific HASPs at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and RCRA TSD facilities undergoing corrective action;

            	Monitoring at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and RCRA TSD facilities undergoing corrective action;

	 	Maintaining records of annual employee medical exams;

		Maintaining records of annual employee refresher training;

            	Reviewing emergency response plans; and

            	Reviewing engineering control, work practices and PPE plans.

	Estimates of the burden hours that would be incurred by State and local governments as a result of collecting and assembling the information required by the EPA worker protection standards are developed based on the amount of time spent and the type of personnel needed to perform the required activities.  Because EPA must comply with OSHA's worker protection standards pursuant to Executive Order 12196, EPA's estimates are based on both its professional judgment and its first-hand experience as a regulated party.  The burden estimates developed for each of these on-going activities are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Federal, State, and Local Government Activities

	The EPA worker protection standards cover State and local government employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response in States that do not have OSHA-approved State plans.  Therefore, all of the respondent activities described in section 3(b)(ii) of this ICR will be performed by State and local government employees.  The major sectors of the work force that are expected to be covered by the EPA standards are:  (1) employees engaged in clean-ups at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, including corrective actions at TSD facilities regulated under RCRA; (2) employees engaged in routine hazardous waste operations at RCRA TSD facilities; and (3) employees engaged in emergency response without regard to location.

            5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	Documentation demonstrating compliance with EPA's worker protection standards would remain at the facility or at the appropriate State or local government office and would be accessed during audits and used during potential enforcement actions.  Employers are required to make their safety and health programs available to any employee or employee representative and personnel of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over the site.  The final standards do not specify any particular method of accomplishing information collection.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	There is a possibility that some small municipalities in non-OSHA States may be unable to afford the costs of compliance with the worker protection standards.  These small communities have the option of pooling resources with neighboring communities to form a regional response capability.  Furthermore, these municipalities also have the option of not acting as first responders to hazardous materials incidents.  Instead, they could coordinate with the State emergency response officials (SERO) and local emergency planning committee (LEPC) to ensure proper hazardous materials incidents response in their municipalities.  EPA believes that the costs and paperwork burden on small municipalities have been minimized and should not present a significant burden.

	To facilitate the implementation of the EPA worker protection standards, EPA and OSHA presented nine workshops in States affected by the EPA standards.  The workshops, which spanned the period of March 1990 to March 1991, focused on the planning, training, and medical surveillance requirements embodied in 29 CFR 1910.120.  In addition, EPA has published five fact sheets and several guidance documents, and has developed two computer software programs that are available free of charge to facilitate the recordkeeping and planning required under the EPA/OSHA worker protection standards.  EPA believes that this assistance should greatly enhance the ability of smaller municipalities to comply with the worker health and safety standards.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	There is no collection schedule - all information is maintained by State and local governments.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Respondent Burden

	EPA is subject to the OSHA worker protection standards (29 CFR 1910.120) and performs the very same activities it is requiring of State and local governments.  As such, the burden hour estimates contained in this ICR are based on its Compliance Cost Analysis developed in support of the EPA worker protection rulemaking, best professional judgment, and first-hand knowledge as a regulated party.

DERIVATION OF THE NUMBER OF ENTITIES AFFECTED BY EPA STANDARDS

	The estimated universe of employees and sites potentially affected by the EPA final worker protection standards is summarized in the sections below.  The HAZWOPER standards technically affect four discrete groups of workers engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response:  (1) clean-up operations at uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal sites that have been identified for clean-up by a governmental health or environmental agency; (2) routine operations at hazardous waste TSD facilities or those portions of any facility regulated by 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265; (3) emergency response operations at sites where hazardous substances have been or may be released; and (4) corrective actions at RCRA facilities.  Because workers engaged in clean-up activities at hazardous waste sites and corrective actions at RCRA facilities are subject to the same requirements, this ICR combines the discussion of these two employee groups.

Employees Engaged in Normal Hazardous Waste Operations at RCRA TSD Facilities

	The precise number of State and local personnel at RCRA-regulated facilities that may be affected by the EPA worker protection standards is not known.  However, data do exist on the number of RCRA-regulated facilities in States covered by the EPA worker protection standards that employ State and local personnel.  EPA estimates that there are 1,395 RCRA-permitted and interim status facilities in the U.S.  Most hazardous waste disposal sites, however, employ only private workers (i.e., not State and local government employees), and are unaffected by the EPA worker protection standards.  EPA estimates that there are only 50 hazardous waste disposal sites located in the 27 States covered by EPA's worker protection standards whose workforce is comprised of State and local government employees. 	 	To be conservative, EPA assumes that all employees at the 50 affected RCRA-regulated facilities are public employees (i.e., there are no private contractors).  EPA estimates that 52,700 employees engage in "normal" (i.e., non-corrective actions) hazardous waste operations at RCRA-regulated TSD facilities.  Thus, each facility employs about 11 employees per facility (52,700/5,000 = 10.54).  Therefore, EPA estimates that approximately 561 State and local government employees are engaged in hazardous waste operations at the 50 RCRA TSD facilities affected by the EPA worker protection standards.

                                      Affected Population for Normal Hazardous Waste Operations at RCRA TSD Facilities

			550 State and local government employees  			--  11 employees per facility

			50 RCRA-regulated TSD facilities

Employees Engaged in Clean-ups at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites and Corrective Actions at RCRA TSD Facilities

	The number of State and local government employees engaged in hazardous waste operations at sites undergoing corrective or remedial actions is highly variable and not known with precision.  EPA believes, however, that the vast majority of workers at these sites are private contractors covered directly or indirectly by the OSHA worker protection standards.  There are approximately 1,264 hazardous waste sites undergoing remediation annually nationwide.  Some of these sites are Federal-lead, some State-lead, and some enforcement-lead (enforcement-lead remedial actions are overseen by a Federal or State enforcement authority).  EPA estimates that about five percent (i.e., 63 sites) of these hazardous waste sites have State or local government employees at the site, and are located in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards.  In addition, EPA estimates that the total population at risk at these 1,264 remedial sites nationwide is 25,280 employees (about 20 workers per site).  Because EPA assumes that the number of workers at remedial sites in States affected by EPA's worker protection standards is directly correlated with the number of hazardous waste sites, EPA estimates that there are about 1,260 State and local government employees (20 workers x 63 sites) overseeing hazardous waste operations at sites in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards.

	EPA also estimates that one-third of all RCRA-regulated TSD facilities will be required to perform corrective actions annually.  Assuming that the State-operated TSD facilities are no different from other TSD facilities, EPA estimates that 17 (i.e., one-third) of the 50 affected RCRA-regulated facilities in States covered by EPA's standards will perform corrective actions annually.  Assuming that the number of State and local government employees engaged in clean-up activities at these 17 sites is also 20 workers per site, the number of affected employees is estimated to be 340 (20 employees per facility x 17 facilities).  To be conservative, it is also assumed that the 340 State and local government employees performing RCRA-regulated corrective actions are not among the 550 State and local government employees engaged in normal RCRA TSD operations described above.  Thus, EPA estimates that there are a total of 50 sites undergoing corrective or remedial actions in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards, affecting a worker population of 1,000 State and local government employees.

		Affected Population for Hazardous Waste Sites and RCRA Corrective Actions

			80 Corrective and Remedial Actions                         			--  63 remedial sites                         			--  17 RCRA-regulated corrective action sites 		 		 	1600 State and local government employees                         			--  1,260 employees at remedial sites                         			--     340 employees at TSD facilities 				--  20 employees per site

Employees Engaged in Emergency Response Without Regard to Location

	There are approximately 1.5 million fire fighters employed by 30,185 fire departments in the United States.  Although there are no precise estimates available of the number of employees and departments in each of the affected States, EPA assumes that the number of fire departments and fire fighters employed in a State is proportional to the State's population.  Because the population of the 27 States and 2 territories affected by the EPA worker protection standards represents about 54 percent of the U.S. population, EPA estimates that 810,000 fire fighters (54 percent) are employed in States and territories covered by EPA's worker protection regulations.  EPA also estimates that 16,299 fire departments (54 percent) will be affected as well.

	Eight years ago, there was an estimated 200 HAZMAT teams in the United States. Since the 9/11 incident at the World Trade Center, over half a million first responders have been trained. Even today, extensive researching for statistics for the breakout of HAZMAT teams and number of local responders or those trained for WMD scenarios is not all that well documented and easily accessible. For the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumes that 108 HAZMAT teams (54 percent) are in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards.  If there is an average of ten fire fighters on each team, 1080 HAZMAT team members would be subject to medical surveillance and other requirements embodied in the EPA worker protection standards.

	Fire department and police department have experience declines over the last few years due to budgetary constraints. EPA will tenuously assume that the number of police officers in each State affected by EPA's worker protection standards is directly correlated with both the population and the number of fire fighters in that State.  Consequently, this analysis estimates that 54 percent of the police officers nationwide are in States that are covered by the EPA worker protection standards.  EPA estimates that a total of 563,000 police officers may be first responders at hazardous materials transportation spills.  Out of this group, EPA estimates that 308,000 police officers (54 percent) are covered by the EPA standards.  In addition, EPA estimates that there are 16,000 police departments nationwide.  Therefore, EPA estimates that approximately 8,640 police departments are affected by EPA's worker protection standards.

	Overall, EPA estimates that 23,900 police and fire departments are affected by the EPA worker protection standards.  Because EPA estimates that there are a total of 908,000 State and local government workers who are emergency responders to hazardous waste incidents, EPA assumes that there are approximately 38 (908,000/23,900 = 38) State and local government employees at each police and fire department.

		Affected Population for Emergency Response Without Regard to Location

			23,900 departments 			--  15,260 fire departments 			--  8,640 police departments 			--  108 HAZMAT teams 			908,000 fire fighters and first responders (including 1080 HAZMAT team members) 			--  600,000 fire fighters 			--  308,000 police officers  			--  38 employees per department

ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN PER ACTIVITY

The following is a summary of the unit burden hours associated with each information collection requirement for the appropriate State and local government employers: 	 Maintaining Records of Annual Employee Medical Exams

	The EPA worker protection standards require that certain employees exposed to hazardous materials in States covered by the EPA worker protection standards receive at least an annual medical exam.  In addition, employers are required to maintain employee medical records for a period of thirty years following termination of employment.  The requirement that employers maintain these medical records on an annual basis imposes a paperwork burden on the affected State and local government employers.  Because medical records for each of the estimated 1080 HAZMAT team members in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards must be maintained by State and local government employers, EPA estimates that approximately 1080 annual medical exams must be recorded.  EPA also estimates that each medical exam will require 0.25 hours (i.e., 15 minutes) of clerical time to be recorded, for a total burden hour estimate of about 270 hours (1080 x 0.25 hours).

The following is a summary of the unit burden hours associated with each information collection requirement for the appropriate State and local government employers:

Maintaining Records of Annual Employee Refresher Training

	The EPA worker protection standards require that State and local government employees engaged in emergency response, corrective action, or normal RCRA TSD operations in States covered by the EPA worker protection standards receive annual refresher training.  Similar to the medical recordkeeping process, employers also are required to document and record each employee's refresher training.  EPA assumes that all State and local government employees engaged in emergency response, corrective actions, and normal RCRA TSD hazardous waste operations will be trained and that the dates and/or results of this training will be recorded.  EPA estimates that employers will expend 0.25 hours of clerical time to record the results of each employee's annual refresher training.  EPA estimates that the results from approximately 909,000 refresher training sessions must be recorded (600,000 fire fighters, 308,000 police officers, 1,000 employees engaged in corrective and remedial actions, and 550 employees at RCRA TSD facilities), for a total burden hour estimate of about 227,500 hours (910,000 x 0.25 hours).

Developing and Revising Site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

	EPA assumes that every corrective action site in States affected by the EPA worker protection standards will need to develop and/or update its site-specific safety and health plan (HASP) each year.  A site-specific HASP must include a monitoring program, a site control program, a decontamination program, an emergency response plan, and a spill response program specifically designed to protect workers at the site.  The development and revision of the HASP is an iterative process.  EPA estimates that 2 hours of management time and 10 hours of technical time will be required each year to develop and/or revise each HASP for each of the estimated 50 corrective and remedial actions taking place in States affected by EPA's worker protection standards.  The total burden hour estimate for this activity is 600 hours (50 sites x 12 hours).

Monitoring at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste and Corrective Action Sites

	EPA estimates that periodic and/or personal monitoring will occur on average 50 times per year at each of the estimated 50 uncontrolled hazardous waste and RCRA corrective action sites in States covered by the EPA worker protection standards.  It is estimated that each air monitoring session will require one hour of technical time to record.  As a result, the 33 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and the 17 RCRA corrective actions will expend 50 hours per year to record the results of air monitoring sessions, for a total burden hour estimate of 2,500 hours (50 sites x 50 hours).

Reviewing Emergency Response Plans for Fire Departments

	Fire departments must review their own emergency response plans every five years.  EPA estimates that each fire department will require 1 hour of management time and 4 hours of technical time to conduct its review.  EPA also assumes that the emergency response programs at RCRA-regulated facilities are contained in the employer's contingency plan required under RCRA; therefore, the burden for updating the plan is not attributed to this ICR.  Similarly, the emergency response plan for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is part of the HASP, and is not estimated separately in this ICR.  Because emergency response plans are reviewed every five years, the total burden for this activity is distributed over a five-year time period [(5 hrs x 15,260)/5] to arrive at an annual burden of 15,260 hours.

Reviewing Engineering Control, Work Practices, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Plans

	EPA estimates that 1 hour of management time and 3 hours of technical time will be required for each fire department to review its PPE plan.  Because these plans must be reviewed only once every five years, the total burden for this activity is distributed over a five-year time period to arrive at an annual burden of 9,156 hours [(3 x 15,260)/5].

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	EPA assumes that all affected State and local governments developed programs and procedures to maintain the required collection of information during the first year of the EPA worker protection standards. It is therefore assumed that any startup costs would have been incurred at this time.  Therefore, any additional costs (purchases of database type software or upgrading of PCs) would be part of normal operating procedures and not viewed as additional respondent costs for compliance with on-going recordkeeping.  EPA is not estimating additional costs for collection other than those estimated in the burden hours estimate. 	 	6(c)	Estimating Federal Government Burden and Cost

	Because the EPA worker protection standards apply to State and local government employees, the burden and costs are incurred by State and local governments. There is no burden imposed on the Agency, as it will not perform any of the worker protection activities associated with this rule.

      6(d)		Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	The estimated total burden hours incurred by respondents complying with the EPA worker protection standards are presented in Exhibit 2.   Associated costs are presented in Exhibit 3.

	6(e)		Reasons for Change in Burden

	For this ICR, the annual burden hour estimate is 255,477 hours.  This represents a decrease of 56,203 hours from the previous ICR.  As the program has matured and stabilized, the computer programs by which records are input and maintained have greatly advanced, making the burden estimate decrease from the previous ICR.

      6(f)		Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.69 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0007, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the [insert your Program Office docket name] in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0007 and OMB Control Number 2050-0105 in any correspondence.

	                                                                               EXHIBIT 2:  ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR AFFECTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

                                                                                ACTIVITY                                UNIT BURDEN HOURS                                 (per activity)                                                                                NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES                                                           NUMBER OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEES (per facility)                                                                                TOTAL BURDEN                                      (hours)

                                      MGT                                      TECH                                      CLER

              NORMAL OPERATIONS AT RCRA-REGULATED TSD FACILITIES Medical Surveillance

0.25 50 11 138 Training

0.25 50 11 138 TOTAL

0.50 50 11 276              UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Health and Safety Plan (HASP) 2 10

50 NA 600 Air Monitoring

50

50 NA 2,500 Medical Surveillance

0.25 50 20 250 Training

0.25 50 20 250 TOTAL 2 60 0.50 50 20 3,600          ACTIVITIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE WITHOUT REGARD TO LOCATION Emergency Response Plan 1 4

15,260 NA 76,300/5 = 15,260* PPE Plan 1 2

15,260 NA 45,780/5 = 9,156* Medical Surveillance

0.25 108 5 135 Training

0.25 23,900 38 227,050 TOTAL 2 6 0.5 23,900 38 251,601          TOTAL BURDEN                                          255,477 NA - Not Applicable * - Activity required every 5 years

      EXHIBIT 3:  ESTIMATED COST FOR AFFECTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

                                                                                ACTIVITY                                                                          UNIT COST ($)                                 (per activity)                                                                  NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES                                                            NUMBER OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEES PER FACILITY                                                                                TOTAL COST                                     (dollars)

                                      MGT                                      TECH                                      CLER

              NORMAL OPERATIONS AT RCRA-REGULATED TSD FACILITIES Medical Surveillance

$3 50 11 $1,650 Training

$3 50 11 $1,650 TOTAL

$6 50 11 3,300.00              UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Health and Safety Plan (HASP) $84 $250

50 NA $16,700 Air Monitoring

$1,250

50 NA $62,500 Medical Surveillance

$3 50 20 $3,000 Training

$3 50 20 $3,000 TOTAL $84 $1,500 $6 50 20 $85,200          ACTIVITIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE WITHOUT REGARD TO LOCATION Emergency Response Plan $42 $100

15,260 NA $2,166,920/5 = $433,384* PPE Plan $42 $50

15,260 NA $1,403,920/5 = $280,784* Medical Surveillance

$3 108 5 $1,620 Training

$3 23,900 38 $2,724,600 TOTAL $84 $150 $6 23,900 38 $3,440,388          TOTAL COST                                         $3,525,588 NA - Not Applicable * - Activity required every 5 years