MEMORANDUM:

TO; The Record FROM: Elaine Eby, Environmental Scientist SUBJECT: Emails and Materials Developed for OMB During the OMB Review Process: August 2005 Feb 28,2006.

Attached to this document are the emails and documents developed in response to OMB's questions during the OMB review process. Also included in this document is the redline/ strikeout document that compares the preamble for the Burden Reduction rule that was submitted to OMB with the preamble that OMB concurred with. 2 David S. Nicholas Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response US Environmental Protection Agency ( mc 5103T)

ph. 202.566.1927 fx. 202.566.1934 nicholas. david@ epa. gov  Forwarded by David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 02/ 23/ 2006 10: 18 AM

David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 11: 55 AM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject Re: RCRA burden reduction rule Hi Keith,

Yes it is true that the amount of burden to be reduced in the final rule is less than was in the proposal. I'm getting the exact amounts in a few hours and will share that with you  I have been keeping your request for that on the front burner from when I asked if you'd be able to do an expedited review to help us meet a Thompson report deadline.

It was pointed out to me this morning that the article is possibly confusing some things. It described the broadening of who could be certified

and EPA's goal in that was to encourage competition, which may, as a secondary benefit, lower some costs but not necessarily reduce burden.

Also, the proposed certification changes that we are not promulgating never did have much burden reduction savings, some fraction of $ 3 million. In the final rule, these still do not have much burden reduction savings. Even with our changes, the burden reduction effect is very,

very small. To further clarify, in the proposal, all the changes proposed, except for two LDR changes, accounted for $ 3 million in annual savings. In our final rule, we have $ 5.5million to $ 9 million in annual savings of that $ 3.5million  7million is for the reduction in the frequency of tank inpsections for LQGs and SQG. 3 I should have some more explanatory info about the burden reduction rule and how it has evolved soon  will keep you apprised.

David S. Nicholas US Environmental Protection Agency ( mc 5103T)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff ph. 202.566.1927 fx. 202.566.1934 nicholas. david@ epa. gov " Belton, Keith B."

< Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

06/ 10/ 2005 07: 57 AM To David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject RCRA burden reduction rule So is it fair to say that the burden of the draft final rule is much, much less than what was proposed? ( see article)

Thursday, June 09, 2005 Click here for the InsideEPA. com Main Page 4 RCRA Burden Reduction Rule May Omit Contentious Certification Plan EPA's soon to be finalized rule aimed at reducing paperwork and reporting burdens under the Resource Conservation &

Recovery Act ( RCRA) may omit a contentious proposal that would have broadened the type of environmental professionals who could certify the effectiveness of waste treatment units, according to EPA and industry sources.

While an official with the Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) declined to specify whether EPA would omit the provision from the final version of the burden reduction rule, the source says the provision on environmental professionals was " extremely controversial"

and drew strong concerns from state environmental agencies.

But the source confirms that in light of state concerns, the agency would limit its proposal to reduce inspection requirements for some tanks, containers and containment buildings from weekly to, at a minimum, monthly inspections. Instead of permitting such inspections on a case by case basis, EPA's final rule will only reduce inspection frequency for facilities participating in the agency's National Environmental Performance Track program. This program provides reduced inspections and other regulatory flexibility for certain high performing facilities that use environmental management systems ( EMS) and go " beyond compliance."

The source says the rule is currently undergoing internal agency review before being sent to the White House Office of Management & Budget for interagency review.

The RCRA burden reduction rule is part of an ongoing EPA initiative to reduce paperwork, reporting and other burdens imposed under the law, which regulates hazardous waste storage, disposal and treatment facilities. In an October 2003 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed to allow so called certified hazardous materials managers to certify whether certain hazardous waste treatment units were designed and operated effectively in lieu of only allowing what the notice described as " independent,

qualified registered professional" engineers to issue those certifications.

The organization representing the certified hazardous materials managers asked EPA, in comments on a 1999 notice of data availability on the RCRA burden reduction initiative, to allow them to issue the certifications. Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council also supported the proposal, with some saying the increased competition would reduce certification costs.

But states were sharply opposed to the plan, with the Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 5 ( ASTSWMO) saying in December 2003 comments, " There is no reason for the RCRA program to attempt to create an alternative strategy to allow non engineers to certify RCRA documents." ASTSWMO also says allowing a non independent engineer, such as an engineer already employed by a regulated facility, would create a conflict of interest. ASTSWMO represents state waste regulators. ASTSWMO also says in its comments that the proposal does not meet the rule's goal of reducing RCRA paperwork burdens because " allowing someone other than a PE [ professional engineer] to perform the RCRA certifications, even in limited situations,

does not reduce the time spent or the paperwork involved. Non PEs would have to review the exact same amount/ type of materials as that of a PE, thereby not reducing the time spent or the paperwork."

Meanwhile, the OSW source says EPA has decided to limit provisions allowing less frequent inspections to participants in the agency's performance track program, in light of state concerns that their workload would increase dramatically if they were forced to decide on a case by case basis whether certain facilities could have less frequent inspections.

States had also suggested that the flexibility be limited to performance track members whose EMSs have been audited by the state or where independent, third party EMS audits have been approved by the state. According to ASTSWMO's comments, " Several studies have shown that there are variations in quality in the third party auditing community, and that a third party audit of an EMS does not in all cases assure the facility is achieving higher levels of compliance."

As a result, the group says, " It is recommended that this incentive be only provided to Performance Track members that have received a state conducted pre audit or a third party audit that has been reviewed and approved by the state. This would ensure that the EMS that is in place is actually assuring a higher level of performance."

Date: June 9, 2005 © Inside Washington Publishers 6 David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 02: 34 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc JohnB Chamberlin/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Sarah Garman/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Gerain Perry/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Re: RCRA burden reduction rule Hi Keith,

I'm going to be out of the office for a few hours have to run now will check back in around 4: 30 via email from home. Here's the detail on our burden reduction rule  a chronology, a matrix of the changes  and some context about burden reduction in general across RCRA  let me know if you have Q's.

thanks 06.10.05 Burden Reduction Cost Savings Chronology Federal Register Notices 7 June 18, 1999 ( 64 FR 32859)  EPA published a Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) presenting all of our burden reduction ideas for the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

January 17, 2002 ( 67 FR 2518)  EPA published a proposed rule identifying approximately one third of the 334 RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements to be eliminated or modified. This comprised only a subset of the ideas put forth in our 1999 NODA.

October 29, 2003 ( 68 FR 61662)  EPA published a second NODA soliciting comment on additional burden reduction changes to the RCRA regulations suggested by the commenters ( e. g., reduced self inspection frequency for tanks systems for small quantity generators, reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track members). EPA also solicited comment on some other actions that posed possible notice and comment problems if promulgated.

December 2005  We plan to finalize our Burden Reduction rule. Our Cost Benefit Analysis currently estimates between $ 5.5 and $ 9 million in annual savings ( 79,000  135,000 hours) as a result of approximately 150 changes to the RCRA regulations. The majority of savings ($ 3.5 million to $ 7 million), is from the reduced frequency of tank systems inspections from daily to weekly for large quantity generators and small quantity generators.

Evolution of the Burden Reduction Cost Benefit Analysis Proposed Rule:

The Cost Benefit Analysis for the proposed rule estimated a total burden reduction of $ 120 million ( assuming all actions were promulgated as proposed).

To develop this Cost Benefit Analysis, we relied in part on the information/ data available from the RCRA Information Collection Requests ( ICRs).

The Cost Benefit Analysis identified 8 ICRs that would be affected by our proposed changes, including the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ( ICR # 820.08) and the Land Disposal Restrictions( LDR) ( ICR # 1442.18).

In the proposal, we solicited comment on the elimination of two LDR waste analysis requirements, ( § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a)), 8 which we estimated would result in $ 117 million in burden reduction savings.

We suggested that other requirements provided the same safeguards as these two LDR determinations, making them redundant.

We reasoned that a determination of whether a waste is hazardous is required by generators under § 262.11, which says that generators of solid waste must determine whether a waste is hazardous through analysis or process knowledge. Also § 264.13. requires treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs) to perform a general waste analysis to determine " all of the information which must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance with this Part and Part 268 of this chapter "( emphasis added).

We concluded that these two determinations were sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs.

The Cost Benefit Analysis, therefore, made the assumption that generators would make their hazardous waste determination ( § 262.11)

and their LDR determinations ( § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a)) separately, incurring burden for each determination.

Using this assumption, coupled with the proposed elimination of § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a), we calculated an estimated $ 117 million in burden reduction savings ( out of the total $ 120 million proposed).

Comments on the Proposed Rule:

Commenters pointed out that the § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a) generator waste analysis determinations if eliminated would create similar or greater burdens for TSDFs, who rely on these generator analyses.

Similarly, we could not eliminate the § 262.11 waste analysis determination, which requires the generator to determine whether their waste is hazardous.

Therefore, we are leaving both requirements in place, but are clarifying in § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a) that the LDR waste analysis determinations ( which would normally also satisfy the § 262.11 waste analysis requirement) may be done simultaneously with the § 262.11 waste analysis determination. 9 However, many generators already perform these determinations simultaneously, and therefore avoid duplicative waste analyses.

The Generator ICR (# 820.08) confirms that simultaneous determinations are currently being done. 10 Final Rule:

In the final rule, instead of eliminating § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a) as we proposed, we are adding cross references to the regulatory language in § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a) to § 262.11, in order to clarify in the regulations that these two waste analysis functions can be performed concurrently.

Comments to the proposal pointed out that we could not eliminate § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a) without creating a similar level of burden for treatment facilities receiving the wastes.

This change is consistent with comments received on the proposal, our understanding of current industry practices, and our ICRs. The cross references will prevent enforcement issues being raised with the current practice, ( i. e., concurrent determinations.)

The Cost Benefit Analysis for the draft rule, now reflects the actual practice of the industry, i. e., that generators normally make a single request to a laboratory to determine if their waste is both hazardous ( § 262.11) and if the waste has to be treated before land disposal ( § 268.7( a)( 1) and § 268.9( a)). This results in $ 117 million in relief being subtracted from our proposed Cost Benefit Analysis, because the original analysis took credit for reducing a burden that to a large extent did not really exist.

The Cost Benefit Analysis now estimates a burden reduction savings of between $ 5.5 million and $ 9 million. Of this total savings,

we estimate $ 3.5 million to $ 7.0 million is attributed to the reduced tank inspection frequency for generators of hazardous waste ( both LQG and SQGs).

06.10.05 OSW Burden Reduction Activities The OSW Burden Reduction rule is nearing final agency review and is one of several burden reduction action activities.

In 2005, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, which is estimated will reduce burden by 345,057 hours per year at a cost savings of between $ 12 and $ 20 million annually.

In 2005, we plan to publish the Standardized Permit final rule, which would be available to facilities that generate hazardous waste 11 and routinely manage the waste on site in non thermal units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. This final rule could result in an annual permitting process paperwork burden hour savings of between 46,900 to 57,100 hours per year and an annual cost savings to industry and permitting authorities of between $ 6.5 and $ 12.3 million.

In 2005, we also plan to publish the Burden Reduction final rule, that will result in approximately 149 changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. We estimate that this final rule will result in a total annual burden reduction of between 79,000 to 135,000 hours, for a cost savings of between $ 5.5 and $ 9 million annually.

Note: These activities compare to other burden reduction efforts being undertaken outside the Office of Solid Waste, for example, the TRI program is amending their reporting requirements and estimates an annual burden reduction of between 340,000 and 500,000 hours per year. David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 10/ 06/ 2005 02: 10 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject Re: rcra burden reduction Hi Keith,

Getting back to you on what's been excluded from the final rule and NODA. Here's a table that racks this up  it would be ideal to look at this in conjunction with reading the preamble  hopefully that will clarify things. 1 We solicited comment in the October 29, 2003 NODA of requiring this information to be maintained for three years instead of until closure of the facility, ( one commenter suggested this possible change). We were convinced by additional comments to the NODA of the utility of this information and are not making this change.

12 The shaded rows are the actual CFR cites, the unshaded ( white) rows are headers to identify what areas of the CFR the regs are in. There were only three changes that we discusssed in the NODA that we did not go final with, these are footnoted. If you have any questions please let me know or if you'd like us to walk through anything with you. REGULATORY CHANGES ( PROPOSED JANUARY 17, 2002 OR IN THE OCTOBER 29, 2003 NODA )

THAT ARE NOT BEING FINALIZED CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 261.38 Lists of Hazardous Wastes. Comparable/ syngas fuel exclusion.

261.38( c)( 1)( i)( A) Submit a one time comparable/ syngas fuel notice to the permitting agency.

264/ 5.16 General Facility Standards. Personnel training.

264/ 5.16( d)( 1)

264/ 5.16( d)( 2)

264/ 5.16( d)( 3) Record the job title.

Record job description .

Record type and amount of training employees will be provided.

264/ 5.73 Operating Record 264/ 5.73( b)( 8) 1 All closure and post closure cost estimates 264.90 Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Applicability.

264.90( a)( 2) Comply with the requirements of 264.101 with exceptions for surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment unit, or landfills.

264/ 5.98 Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Detection monitoring program. CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 13 264.98( c) Conduct and maintain ground water monitoring 264.98( g)( 1)

264.98( g)( 5)( ii)

264.98( g)( 6)( i)( ii) Prepare and submit a notification of contamination.

Prepare and submit an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action.

Prepare and submit a notification of intent to make a demonstration.

264.99 Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Compliance monitoring program.

264.99( h)( 1);

264.99( i)( 1)( 2) Prepare and submit a notification of exceeded concentration limits.

Prepare and submit a notification of intent to make a demonstration .

264/ 5.174 Use and Management of Containers. Inspections.

264/ 5.174 Inspect containers weekly.

264/ 5.193 Tank Systems. Leak detection systems for tanks.

264.193( c)( 3)

264.193 ( c)( 4)

264/ 5.193( e)( 3)( iii)

264/ 5.193( g)

264/ 5.193( h) Demonstration. Demonstration.

Demonstrate to EPA that technology and site conditions do not allow detection of release within 24 hours .

Variance from leak detection systems for tanks.

Variance from leak detection systems for tanks.

264.196 Tank Systems. Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit to use tank systems.

264.196( d)( 1)

264.196( d)( 2)

264.196( d)( 3) Notify EPA of release.

Notify EPA of release.

Submit report describing release.

264/ 5.223 Surface Impoundments. Response actions. CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 14 264/ 5.223( b)( 1)

264/ 5.223( b)( 2)

264/ 5.223( b)( 6) Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds Action Leakage Rate for any sump within 7 days.

Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.

Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.

264.253 Waste Piles. Response actions.

264.253( b)( 1)

264.253( b)( 2)

264.253( b)( 6) Notify EPA in writing of the exceedence within 7 days of the determination.

Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determining leakage.

Compile and submit information to the EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.

264.278 Land Treatment. Unsaturated zone monitoring.

264.278( g)( 1)

264.278( h)( 1)( 2) Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone.

Prepare and submit a notice of intent to make a demonstration that other sources or error led to increases below treatment zone.

264.304 Landfills. Response actions.

264.304( b)( 1)

264.304( b)( 2)

264.304( b)( 6) Notify EPA if Action Leakage Rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination.

Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.

Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.

264.573 Drip Pads. Design and operating standards.

264.573( m)( 1)( iv)

264.573( m)( 2)

264.573( m)( 3) Notify EPA in writing of release.

Regional Administrator will make a determination and will notify owner/ operator of the determination.

Notify EPA and certify completion of repairs.

264.1036 Air Emission Standards for Process Vents. Reporting requirements. CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 15 264.1036( a) Notify EPA semi annually of exceedences.

264.1065 Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Reporting requirements.

264.1065( a) Notify EPA semi annually of exceedences.

264/ 5.1101 Containment Buildings. Design and operating standards.

265.1101( c)( 2)

264/ 5.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D)

264/ 5.1101( c)( 3)( ii)( iii)

264/ 5.1101( c)( 4) Certify by qualified registered professional engineer.

Notify EPA in writing of release.

Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release.

Inspection frequency.

265.1( b) Purpose, scope, and applicability.

265.93 Ground Water Monitoring. Preparation, evaluation, and response.

265.93( c)( 1)

265.93( d)( 1)

265.93( e)

265.93( f) Notify of increased indicator parameter concentrations.

Notify of increased indicator parameter concentrations.

Any ground water assessment to satisfy the requirements of § 265.93( d)( 4) which is initiated prior to final closure must be completed and reported in accordance with § 265.93( d)( 5).

Evaluate data and if § 265.91( a) are not satisfied, immediately modify the number, location, or depth of the monitoring wells.

265.94 Ground Water Monitoring. Recordkeeping and reporting.

265.94( a)( 2)( i)

265.94( a)( 2)( ii)

265.94( a)( 2)( iii)

265.94( b)( 2) Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters.

Prepare and submit a report on indicator parameter concentrations and evaluations.

Prepare and submit a report on ground water surface elevations.

Prepare and submit a report on the results of the ground water quality assessment program.

265.259 Waste Piles. Response actions. CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 2After publication of the October 29, 2003 NODA, ( See 68 FR 61662), EPA determined that the certification required by Section 266.111( e)( 2) had to be made by August 21,1992. As such, the Agency is not pursuing a change to this requirement in the rulemaking, obviously because the date has passed. 16 265.259( b)( 1)

265.259( b)( 2)

265.259( b)( 6) Notify EPA in writing of the exceedence amount of the leakage.

Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.

Submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.

265.276 Land Treatment. Food chain crops.

265.276( a) Submit notification for food chain crops at land treatment facility.

265.303 Landfills. Response actions.

265.303( b)( 1)

265.303( b)( 2)

265.303( b)( 6) Notify EPA if Action Leakage Rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination.

Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.

Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.

265.443 Drip Pads. Design and operating requirements.

265.443( m)( 1)( iv)( 2)

265.443( m)( 2)

265.443( m)( 3) Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup.

Regional Administrator will make a determination and notify the owner/ operator of the determination.

Notify Regional Administrator and certify completion of repairs.

266.103 Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. Interim status standards for burners.

266.103( b)( 2)( ii)( D) Certification of pre compliance.

266.111( e)( 2) 2 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Direct transfer equipment  requirements prior to meeting secondary containment requirements. CFR Section Regulatory Requirement 3In the October 29, 2003 NODA, we suggested eliminating the form change FR notice that is required by 266.203( c) and replacing it with a written notification to the Director of EPA's Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement. States strongly opposed this change, pointing out that we would be eliminating a notification about wastes of concern to them and their citizens. Because States have identified a strong interest by the public in these notices, we are not making this change.

17 266.203 Standard applicable to the transportation of solid waste military munitions.

266.203( c) 3 Amendments to DOD shipping controls.

268.7 Land Disposal Restrictions. General. Testing, tracking, and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters,

and disposal facilities.

268.7( a)( 6) Requirement to keep in the facility's files all supporting data and waste analysis data for " knowledge of the waste"

determinations and for testing determinations.

268.7( d)( 1) Requirement to submit to the regulatory authority one time notifications that hazardous debris is excluded form the definition of hazardous waste.

270.17( d) Permit Application. Specific part B information requirements for surface impoundments David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 10/ 13/ 2005 10: 19 AM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject Fw: document2 BRFR0. wpd  BR final rule Volume I of RTC Hi Keith, 18 I have to send this info to you in separate emails ( I'm working offsite this week)  there are 2 more to follow. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks.

David S. Nicholas US Environmental Protection Agency ( mc 5103T)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff ph. 202.566.1927 fx. 202.566.1934 NOTE: THIS IS VOLUME I OF THE COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT THAT IS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCKET David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 10/ 20/ 2005 04: 54 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc " Bromberg, Kevin L." < kevin. bromberg@ sba. gov>

Subject Re: RCRA Burden Reduction Rule Hi Keith and Kevin,

I have some answers to the second question of your original message. Take a look at the attached chart, which is excerpted from the following document, " Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative  Revised Draft Cost Benefit Analysis, January 29, 2001. The shaded rows are the proposed actions that we are not finalizing, i. e., we are retaining the requirements in the CFR.

In the third column are the assumptions we made on burden reduction. These assumptions apply on a per facility basis and as such do not give you the cumulative savings number. These numbers however can be put together if need be or can be found in the above referenced document.

Hopefully this helps  if you need more on this, please call. 4The shaded boxes are the proposed burden reduction changes that we are not finalizing. This table adds information to the table requested by OMB regarding the regulatory action that are not being finalized. If the change was mentioned in the NODA ( October 29,2003) there was no cost benefit analysis done. The burden hours reduced ( found in column 3) are by facility. The total savings are not reflected in this table. 19 Proposed Regulatory Changes to RCRA Information Collection Requirements and EPA's Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Waste Handler Hour and Cost Burden4 Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information ICR # 959.10  Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Conduct and maintain groundwater monitoring Modify  We plan to introduce flexibility by allowing sampling for a smaller subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list of constituents. 264.98( c) It is difficult to determine what impact a case by case change will produce; hours could increase or decrease depending on how the records are modified. Therefore, no burden reduction was taken.

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

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

Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of intent to make a demonstration and submit report Modify  make part of operating record. This information will be available at the facility. 264.98( g)( 6)( i) & ( ii) Burden hours not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. O& M costs decreased from $ 90,006 to $ 89,994. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 20 Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of new constituent concentrations Modify  number of wells, samples, and constituents will be made on a caseby case basis. 264.99( g) It is difficult to determine what impact a case by case change will produce; hours could increase or decrease depending on how the notifications are modified. Therefore, no reduction was taken.

Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of exceeded concentration limits Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. This information will be included as part of a permit modification that must be submitted under 264.99( h)( 2). 264.99( h)( 1) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 69.75 to 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours decreased from 50 to 25. O& M costs decreased from $ 40,000 to $ 39,970. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 21 Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Develop and submit ground water quality assessment reports Modify  no need to submit report. 265.93( d)( 5) Burden hours not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. O& M costs decreased from $ 400,000 to $ 399,970.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters Modify  report may be kept onsite. 265.94( a)( 2)( i) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O& M costs decreased from $ 10 to $ 0. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 22 ICR # 1189.07  Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions ( LDR Phase IV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status)  Evaluation of data and making determinations Modify  evaluation can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 266.103( b)( 2)( ii)( D) Burden hours not reduced because respondents will not have a decreased burden for the evaluation. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 23 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status)  Periodic recertifications of compliance Modify  extend period of time from three to five years, which is sufficient for regulatory purposes. 266.103( d) Burden hours reduced by 50% because recertifications are done less frequently. Hours decreased from 583 to 291.5.

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

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

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

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

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

LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes  Submit one time notification Modify  a separate determination is unnecessary. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.9( a) The ICR did not burden this requirement individually but included it in 268.7( a)( 1). The burden reduction is included in the elimination of 268.7( a)( 1). This requirement has no effect on the ICR. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 24 LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes  Submit certification Modify  keep information on site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 268.9( d) Burden hours reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 581 to 290. O& M costs decreased from $ 232.20 to $ 0.

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

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

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

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

Contingency Plan  Coordination with other plans Modify  Plan should be based on the " One Plan" guidance, which will eliminate the need to prepare multiple contingency plans for Agency requirements. 264.52( b) Burden hours not reduced because the One Plan guidance will not affect the burden for writing the contingency plan.

Operating record  Maintain operating record for facility Modify amount of time some of the information in operating record has to be kept  three years for some requirements, and for the life of the facility for others. 264.73( b) Burden hours not reduced because respondents will not have a decreased burden for record retention. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 25 Standards for Solid Waste Management Units Remove obsolete language. 264.90( a)( 2) There is no effect on the ICR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliminate  this isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether an employee is capable of doing the job safely. 265.16( d)( 3) Burden hours not reduced because other pertinent information is still required.

Contingency Plans  Coordination with other plans Modify  Facilities should follow the " One Plan" guidance, which is designed to eliminate overlap between different regulatory requirements for contingency plans. 265.52( b) Burden hours not reduced because the One Plan guidance will not affect the burden for writing the contingency plan. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 26 Emergency Procedures ( Interim Status Facilities)  Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with 265.56( h) before resuming operations Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement, duplicating the information required by 265.56( j). 265.56( i) Eliminated this requirement. Reduction taken as part of 264.56( i) because the burden was not separated.

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

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

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

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

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

no burden reduction was taken. In addition, the ICR does not specifically identify this requirement.

Assessment of existing tank system's integrity Modify  assessment can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.191( a),( b)( 5)( ii) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done. No respondents shown in the ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Assessment of new tank system and components Modify  assessment does not need to be submitted, and can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.192( a) See Part B Permits  ICR # 1573, 40 CFR 270.16. Burden hours not reduced because the burden is listed under 270.16( a), which still requires this activity. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 27 Inspection of new tank system and components Modify  inspection does not need to be submitted, and can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.192( b) See Part B Permits  ICR # 1573, 40 CFR 270.16. Burden hours not reduced because the burden is listed under 270.16,

which still requires this activity.

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

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

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

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

Tank Systems ( Permitted)  Submit certification of completion of major repairs Modify  certification may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Does not need to be submitted; only maintained on site. 264.196( f) Eliminated requirement to submit. Hours decreased from 1 to 0. O& M costs decreased from $ 6 to $ 0. Certifications performed by Certified Hazardous Materials Managers are not associated with any burden reduction.

Surface Impoundments ( Permitted)  Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds action leakage rate ( ALR) for any sumps within 7 days Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks. 264.223( b)( 1) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 0.5 to 0.

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

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

O& M costs decreased from $ 3 to $ 0. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 28 Surface Impoundments ( Permitted)  Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks. 264.223( b)( 6) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 12 to 0.

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

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

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

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

Waste Piles ( Permitted)  Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks. 264.253( b)( 6) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. 264.278( g)( 1) Eliminated requirement. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 29 Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Prepare and submit notice of intent to make a demonstration that other sources or error led to increases below treatment zone Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. 264.278( h)( 1) and ( 2) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Certification of closure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Requirements for Bulk and Containerized Liquids Remove obsolete language. 264.314( a), ( a)( 1) and ( 2), ( b) & ( f) There is no effect on the ICR.

Incinerators ( Permitted)  Submit notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027 Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since the facility is already permitted to burn this waste, and since there are already regulatory standards governing how the waste is burned. 264.343( a)( 2) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 30 Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Submit written plan, as built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad Modify  activities may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.571( a), ( b), ( c) Burden hours not reduced because although submittal is no longer required, the plan, drawings, and assessment must still be obtained and now maintained on site.

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

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

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

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

Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Notify EPA and certify completion of repairs Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as a certification is obtained. 264.573( m)( 3) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings and notification were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Inspections Modify  inspection may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.574( a) Burden hours not reduced because the inspection must still be done. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 31 Process Vents ( Permitted)  Submit semi annual report of control device monitoring events to the Region Eliminate need to submit report an unnecessary requirement given the detailed recordkeeping required by 264.1035. 264.1036 Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 1,056 to 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Applicability Remove obsolete language. 264.1100 There is no effect on the ICR.

Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Obtain certification that building meets requirements Modify  certification may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.1101( c)( 2) Burden hours not reduced because the certification must still be obtained. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 32 Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since repair of containment building must occur anyway. 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 6.25 to 0.

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

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

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

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

no burden reduction was taken.

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

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

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

no burden reduction was taken. In addition, the ICR does not specifically identify this requirement.

Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity Modify  assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.191( a), ( b)( 5)( ii) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  assessment of structural integrity and acceptability for storing and treating waste Modify  assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.192( a) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 33 Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  assessment of tank installation Modify  assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.192 ( b) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

O& M costs decreased from $ 96 to $ 0.

Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  Submit report describing releases Eliminate  the required certification is adequate. 265.196( d)( 3) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 304 to 0.

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

Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Design and operating requirements Remove obsolete language. 265.221( a) There is no effect on the ICR. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 34 Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA Eliminate  Response Action Plans for other kinds of treatment units are not submitted to EPA. It may be kept onsite. 265.223( a) Eliminated requirement to submit the plan. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

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

Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since information about the leak will be onsite. 265.223( b)( 6) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since other treatment units do not have to submit this plan. 265.259( a) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as Response Action Plan is followed. 265.259( b)( 2) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 35 Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as Response Action Plan is followed. 265.259( b)( 6) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

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

Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan ( RAP) to EPA Modify  Eliminate requirement to submit plan. Developing a plan, keeping it onsite, and implementing it when necessary is sufficient. 265.303( a) Eliminated requirement to submit plan. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA if action leakage rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as Response Action Plan is followed. 265.303( b)( 1) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

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

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

( a)( 2), ( b) and ( g) There is no effect on the ICR. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 36 Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Assessment of Drip pad, Submit written plan,

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

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

Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup takes place. 265.443( m)( 1)( iv), ( 2) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Notify Regional Administrator and certify completion of repairs Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup and repairs are made. 265.443( m)( 3) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings and notification were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

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

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

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

Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators can decide which standard to meet without notifying the Agency. 265.1061( d) Eliminated requirement. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 37 Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators may use alternative work practice without notifying the Agency. 265.1062( a)( 2) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 10 to 0.

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

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

Containment Buildings ( Interim Status)  Obtain certification that building meets design requirements Modify  certification can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 265.1101( c)( 2) Burden hours not reduced because the certification must still be obtained.

Containment Buildings ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 3.75 to 0.

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

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

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

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

no burden reduction was taken.

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

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

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

O& M costs decreased from $ 27 to $ 0. Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information 38 Variance from Leak Detection Systems for Tanks Eliminate need to obtain variance. Owner or operator can implement alternate design and operating practices as long as they follow the requirements of this section. 264.193( g) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 57 to 0.

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

Tank Systems  Submit written assessment of structural integrity Modify  assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 270.16( a) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done.

Surface Impoundments  Assessment of structural integrity Modify  assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 270.17( d) Burden hours not reduced because the assessment must still be done.

ICR Not Available Storage of Solid Waste Military Munitions  Notification of loss or theft Eliminate additional written submission. 266.205( a)( 1)( v) Burden hour reduction is negligible and not quantified in this analysis. 39 " Belton, Keith B."

< Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

10/ 18/ 2005 03: 39 PM To David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc " Bromberg, Kevin L." < kevin. bromberg@ sba. gov>

Subject RCRA Burden Reduction Rule Every time I try to focus on this RCRA burden reduction rule, I get diverted and lose my train of thought. Unfortunately, this has resulted in me asking repeatedly for the same or similar information from you.

Let me try to state what info I need, even though you may have already provided it ( but I don't think you have):

I understand that the burden reduction estimate for this final rule is much less than the proposed rule because of mis estimation at the proposed rule stage. That is, there was a misunderstanding about what companies were already doing that resulted in a mischaracterization of the baseline.

I understand that EPA believes the many items that were proposed ( but are not being finalized) do not amount to much additional burden reduction, should they be finalized.

What I would like to find out is the following: 40 1. Which specific provision of the proposed rule ( and/ or NODA) did EPA think was going to reduce burden significantly, but in the draft final rule does not account for much burden reduction? What information led EPA to conclude that the estimated burden reduction in the proposed rule was an over estimate?

2. Please provide me with estimated burden reductions associated with those requirements that were proposed ( or part of the NODA), but which are not being finalized. You have previously provided me with a table of various provisions that are not being finalized. I would now like to have some estimate of the burden reduction associated with these various provisions.

If we need to have a conf call to clarify this request, let me know.

I have cc'd Kevin Bromberg of SBA on this e mail because he is raising the same questions as he tries to review this rule as part of our interagency review process.

David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 10/ 24/ 2005 01: 38 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc " Bromberg, Kevin L." < kevin. bromberg@ sba. gov>

Subject Re: RCRA Burden Reduction Rule Hi Keith and Kevin,

Here's the answer to your first question. It includes excerpts from the proposed rulet that hopefully explain how we arrive at the new savings. If you'd like to discuss on a conference call, I'd be happy to arrange lines. Let me know if you need anything else. 41 1. Which specific provision of the proposed rule ( and/ or NODA) did EPA think was going to reduce burden significantly, but in the draft final rule does not account for much burden reduction? What information led EPA to conclude that the estimated burden reduction in the proposed rule was an over estimate?

When proposed, the burden reduction savings totaled 920,000 hours annually at a cost savings of about $ 120 million. However, approximately $ 117 million of the total burden savings lay in proposing to eliminate a duplicate requirement for generator testing of hazardous wastes. Commenters suggested that our estimated savings for this change was unreasonably high compared to common industry practice. During the development of the final rule, we investigated further and found that an earlier Information Collection Request ( ICR) recognized the de facto industry practice of meeting the two requirements through simultaneous testing and reflected the reduced burden. The legality of the industry practice was never clarified in the appropriate RCRA regulations,

however, and in the final rule we are clarifying the legality of simultaneous testing.

Excerpts from the Proposed Rule Document:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Burden Reduction Initiative  Revised Draft Cost Benefit Analysis ( January 29, 2001).

Pages: 4 1  4 3.

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

annual reduction from the baseline).

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

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

Excerpts from the Final Rule Preamble Discussion pages 33 35.

We Are Clarifying the Regulatory Language on the Land Disposal RestrictionsGenerator Waste Determination. 42 We proposed eliminating § 268.7( a)( 1) that requires, among other things, that generators conduct a waste determination for purposes of complying with the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDRs). Section 268.7( a)( 1) requires generators to determine if hazardous waste must be treated prior to land disposal. This determination can be made either through testing or using the generator's knowledge of the waste's properties and constituents.

We suggested that a combination of two other requirements provided the same safeguards as § 268.7( a)( 1), making it redundant. First, a determination of whether a waste is hazardous is required by 40 CFR 262.11, which says that generators of solid waste must determine whether a waste is hazardous. Second, § 264.13( a)( 1) requires treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs) to perform a general waste analysis to determine " all of the information which must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance with this Part and Part 268 of this chapter "( emphasis added). We suggested that these other determinations are sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs.

Some commenters supported deleting this waste analysis requirement, stating, generally, that they supported the Agency's efforts to reduce redundant testing requirements. We agree with these comments with respect to reducing redundant testing requirements and are adding a cross reference in § 268.7( a)( 1) to § 262.11, in order to clarify that these two generator waste analysis functions can be performed concurrently, thus avoiding redundant waste analysis.

Commenters opposing deleting the generator LDR waste analysis requirement, however, were persuasive in their argument that the deletion of § 268.7( a)( 1)

would not really result in burden reduction. Rather, it would merely shift the burden from the generator to the TSDF. While TSDFs have a separate LDR waste analysis requirement under § 264.13( a)( 1), they often rely   at least in part   on determinations or information provided by the generator. Commenters further asserted that if TSDFs have to assume full responsibility for the LDR waste analysis requirement, it would be more expensive overall, because generators can use their knowledge of the waste in determining how LDRs apply to a waste, while the TSDF would not have that background and would have to perform much more extensive waste analysis. We agree with these comments, and have determined that we need to maintain the LDR generator waste analysis requirement of § 268.7( a)( 1). Thus, today's rule, rather than eliminating paragraph § 268.7( a)( 1), amends paragraph § 268.7( a)( 1), to avoid duplication and clarify that the two generator waste analysis functions can be performed concurrently.

We Are Clarifying the Regulatory Language on the Land Disposal Restrictions Characteristic Waste Determination Requirement.

We proposed to eliminate the separate waste analysis requirement ( § 268.9( a)) for generators of characteristic hazardous wastes under the land disposal restrictions, in order to parallel the proposed changes to § 268.7( a)( 1) that are discussed above.

Some commenters supported deleting this waste analysis requirement, stating, generally, that they supported the Agency's efforts to reduce redundant testing requirements. We agree with these comments with respect to reducing redundant testing requirements and are adding a cross reference in § 268.9( a) to § 262.11, in order to clarify that these two generator waste analysis functions can be performed concurrently, thus avoiding redundant waste analysis.

Commenters opposing deleting the generator LDR waste analysis requirement, however, were persuasive in their argument that the deletion of § 268.9( a) 43 would not really result in burden reduction. Rather, it would merely shift the burden from the generator to the TSDF. While TSDFs have a separate LDR waste analysis requirement under § 264.13( a)( 1), they often rely   at least in part   on determinations or information provided by the generator. Commenters further asserted that if TSDFs have to assume full responsibility for the LDR waste analysis requirement, it would be more expensive overall, because generators can use their knowledge of the waste in determining how LDRs apply to a waste, while the TSDF would not have that background and would have to perform much more extensive waste analysis. We agree with these comments, and have determined that we need to maintain the LDR generator waste analysis requirement of § 268.9( a). Thus, today's rule, rather than eliminating paragraph § 268.9( a), amends paragraph § 268.9( a), to avoid duplication and clarify that the two generator waste analysis functions can be performed concurrently David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 01/ 2005 04: 30 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject Re: RCRA burden reduction Hi Keith  Getting back to your questions:

 We still expect the economic analysis to come in sometime this week but it will only be slightly modified, I think the new information is just contained on a front cover page  not a total reworking of the full analysis.

 Here's a new chart that we hope responds to your # 2 question   note that the items we retained in RCRA are in boldfont and some of them are 5The shaded boxes are the proposed burden reduction changes that we are not finalizing. This table adds information to the table requested by OMB regarding the regulatory action that are not being finalized. If the change was mentioned in the NODA ( October 29,2003) there was no cost benefit analysis done. The burden hours reduced ( found in column 3) are by facility. The total savings are not reflected in this table.

6The row entries in bold text have a calculated burden reduction savings.

44 " big ticket" but don't always surpass the 10k mark...

On # 3  I have all the comments pulled together  would be a tough package to fax  so let's meet for a drop off. I can come over today if you are ready for it. Let me know logistics  and I can call on my cel when I'm within a few yards.

Proposed Regulatory Changes to RCRA Information Collection Requirements and EPA's Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Waste Handler Hour and Cost Burden56 Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Citation Changes in Burden, Assumptions Used, and Information ICR # 959.10  Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements Baseline Annual Respondent Burden Hours 64,181 O& M Cost $ 80,106,425 Total Cost: $ 82,924,275.

Annual Respondent Burden Under Proposed Rule Hours 58,725 O& M Cost $ 79,966,571 Total Cost $ 82,535,542 Estimated Change From Baseline Hours  5,456 O& M Cost $ 139,854 Total Cost $ 388,733 Percentage Change From Baseline Hours 8.5% O& M Cost 0.2% Total Cost 0.5%

Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Conduct and maintain ground water monitoring Modify  We plan to introduce flexibility by allowing sampling for a smaller subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list of constituents.

264.98( c) It is difficult to determine what impact a case by case change will produce; hours could increase or decrease depending on how the records are modified. Therefore, no burden reduction was taken.

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

Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action, if required 45 Modify  make part of operating record. This information will be available at the facility. 264.98( g)( 5)( ii)

Burden hours not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. O& M costs decreased from $ 1,040,000 to $ 1,039,952.

Detection Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of intent to make a demonstration and submit report Modify  make part of operating record. This information will be available at the facility. 264.98( g)( 6)( i) & ( ii)

Burden hours not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. O& M costs decreased from $ 90,006 to $ 89,994.

Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of new constituent concentrations Modify  number of wells, samples, and constituents will be made on a case by case basis. 264.99( g)

It is difficult to determine what impact a case by case change will produce; hours could increase or decrease depending on how the notifications are modified. Therefore, no reduction was taken.

Compliance Monitoring ( Permitted Facilities)  Prepare and submit notification of exceeded concentration limits Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. This information will be included as part of a permit modification that must be submitted under 264.99( h)( 2).

264.99( h)( 1) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 69.75 to 0. O& M costs decreased from $ 93 to $ 0.

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

264.99( i)( 1), ( 2) Eliminated requirement. Hours decreased from 231.75 to 0. O& M costs decreased from $ 135,009 to $ 0.

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

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

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit report Modify  no need to submit report to Regional Administrator, can be kept on site. 265.90( d)( 3) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 22.50 to 11.25. O& M costs decreased from $ 44,140 to $ 44,125.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit notification of increased indicator parameter concentrations Modify  no need to submit reports, this information will be noted as part of the groundwater quality assessment program.

265.93 ( c)( 1), ( d)( 1) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 40 to 20. O& M costs decreased from $ 7,500 to $ 7,470.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit information for ground water quality assessment plan Modify  no need to submit information, it may be maintained onsite. 265.93( d)( 2) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 50 to 25. O& M costs decreased from $ 40,000 to $ 39,970.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Develop and submit ground water quality assessment reports Modify  no need to submit report. 265.93( d)( 5) Burden hours not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. O& M costs decreased from $ 400,000 to $ 399,970. 46 Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters Modify  report may be kept onsite. 265.94( a)( 2)( i) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. O& M costs for mailings were eliminated. No respondents shown in ICR so no change in hours or cost.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on indicator parameter concentrations and evaluations Modify  report may be kept onsite. 265.94( a)( 2)( ii) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 4,080 to 2,040. O& M costs decreased from $ 1,530 to $ 0.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on ground water surface elevations Modify  report may be kept onsite. 265.94( a)( 2)( iii) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 4,080 to 2,040. O& M costs decreased from $ 1,530 to $ 0.

Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on the results of the ground water quality assessment program Modify  report may be kept onsite. 265.94( b)( 2) Burden reduced by 50% because no longer submitting report. Hours decreased from 2,036 to 1,018. O& M costs decreased from $ 1,781,500 to $ 1,779,973.

ICR # 1189.06  Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions This estimate includes ICRs 1189.06 and 1189.07 Baseline Annual Respondent Burden Hours 20,111 O& M Cost $ 42,693 Total Cost: $ 1,761,883 Annual Respondent Burden Under Proposed Rule Hours 19,041 O& M Cost $ 41,895 Total Cost $ 1,695,059 Estimated Change From Baseline Hours  1,070 O& M Cost $ 798 Total Cost $ 66,824 Percentage Change From Baseline Hours 5.3% O& M Cost 1.9% Total Cost 3.8%

Variance from classification as a solid waste  survey industry wide practices Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. The Agency does not need this information to grant a variance. 260.31( b)( 2)

Eliminated this requirement. Hours decreased from 100 to 0.

Submit report estimating the number of studies and amount of waste to be used in treatability studies Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. This information is provided to the regulatory agency at a later date, and these estimates are not necessarily accurate. 261.4( f)( 9) Eliminated this requirement. Hours decreased from 16 to 0. O& M costs decreased from $ 10 to $ 0. 47 " Belton, Keith B."

< Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

10/ 31/ 2005 12: 47 PM To David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject RCRA burden reduction 1. EPA is still revising theri economic analysis, correct? When will I see a new version?

2. A while ago, you sent me a chart showing the items that were proposed but which are not being finalized, along with an estimate of the per facility burden reduction that might be involved. ( This was a three column table.) I do want to know what the total burden reduction is for each of these items/ requirements that are not being finalized. Is it possible to get this info? ( If it seems like a lot of work, call me to discuss. I don't want there to be a misunderstanding of what I am asking for.)

3. I would like to see certain public comments from your docket on the NODA's/ proposed rule: SOCMA, ACC, USWAG, NAM, API,

ASTSWMO, Michigan, New Jersey, TX, WA, DOE, DoD, and ETC. Can I get these from you? ( Many of these organizations submitted more than one comment. I want them all.) Since many of these were submitted in paper form only, you may need to meet me on the street for delivery.

BTW, I expect SBA to have comments this week. 48 David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 07/ 2005 01: 26 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject final economic analysis RCRA burden reduction rule Hi Keith,

Sorry for the delay in getting this to you Attached is the final analysis including a cover letter that explains changes in the rule and presents the updated burden savings. Note that only the second page has changed... the rest is the same as previously sent to you.

Please don't hesitate to call with questions.

David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 23/ 2005 03: 06 PM To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc kevin. bromberg@ sba. gov Subject responses to questions on RCRA Burden Rule 49 Here are the responses to your questions from our earlier conference call and followup email exchanges:

On a technical/ procedural note about the extension request  I've just learned that in order to get an extension letter signed by OPEI management,

I need to get from you the dates by which you'd want your review to close. From that, I draft the extension letter and OPEI sends it to Art Fraas.

So let me know the dates and I'll get the letter moving ASAP, although maybe our answers above will help conclude at least part of your review sooner than later.

David S. Nicholas US Environmental Protection Agency ( mc 5103T)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff ph. 202.566.1927 fx. 202.566.1934 nicholas. david@ epa. gov RCRA Burden Reduction Final Rule EPA Responses to OMB/ SBA Comments and Questions November 23, 2005 OMB Questions:

1. Recommend that the final rule eliminate the following waste analysis requirement for generators: 268.7( a)( 1).

Eliminating this requirement was proposed. Providing generators with greater flexibility is likely to reduce burden to at least some extent, even if it cannot be quantified.

Consequences of Dropping LDR Generator Waste Analysis 50 Eliminating the 268.7( a)( 1) generator waste analysis requirement undermines the notification and certification framework that we have set up for generators, and will limit existing generator flexibility to test wastes on their own or use existing knowledge of the waste stream to establish whether the waste requires treatment under LDR. Since there will be no EPAenforceable certification for generators, TSDFs have told us they will protect themselves from enforcement liability by requiring more in house analysis of wastes. The cost of these analyses will be passed to the generators.

The certification described in 268.7( a) ( 1) is closely aligned with the certifications described in 268.7 ( a)( 2) and ( a) ( 3).

By eliminating the provisions of ( a)( 1) we would needlessly complicate those other certifications, or simply assure that TSDFs require in house analysis to satisfy the entire 268.7 ( a) framework.

2. Recommend that Performance Track facilities should be allowed to inspect monthly, without a case by case determination. Please explain why a subset of non PT companies ( e. g., those with an exemplary environmental record) should be excluded from monthly self inspections.

In the October 29, 2003 NODA we proposed to allow reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track facilities, up to monthly on a case by case basis. We have never discussed an option to remove the case by case criteria for inspection frequencies greater than one week for any facility. Furthermore, EPA believes such oversight would not create undue burden.

One of the principal arguments for limiting the case by case option only to Performance Track members was the burden it would otherwise impose on authorized states to evaluate other facilities ( an unfunded federal mandate). States believed very strongly that this option should not be offered to all facilities because of the burden it would create for them.

It would not reduce burden if States and the Agency had to determine case by case who is a top performer and who is not, based on the criteria set out in the proposal. Performance Track facilities meet these criteria by definition of their membership in the program, and therefore are provided this alternative by rule. 51 EPA recognizes that there are many top performing facilities in the United States and its territories that may warrant the alternatives provided by today's rule. EPA encourages any facility who believes themselves to be a top environmental performer to apply to the Performance Track program for membership, and by extension, for immediate eligibility for these provisions.

3. Recommend that EPA not require secondary containment with leak detection as a condition for reduced inspection frequencies for small quantity generators.

It would seem that small quantity generators do not pose the same risk as LQGs, and therefore should not be treated the same under this burden reduction rule.

In the SQG tank requirements ( 265.201( c)), SQG tanks are not required to have secondary containment. However,

inspections of the construction materials of the tank and the construction material of the area immediately surrounding the tank are required to be conducted weekly. SQGs also are required to inspect, on a daily basis, any discharge control equipment, any monitoring data; and the level of waste in the tank to ensure that the waste is being managed properly and that leaks and/ or releases can be identified quickly. There is no paperwork requirement attached to conducting these inspections.

EPA agrees that SQGs do not pose the same risk as LQGs and we stated such in the SQG tanks regulations finalized on March 24, 1986 ( 51 FR 25422), codified at 265.201 ( see footnote 14 of the BR preamble). However, we still believe that,

unless there is secondary containment, these three inspection requirements should be conducted daily in order to ensure that the tank is being operated properly and the waste remains in the tank and is not about to overflow. It is important to remember that SQGs generate between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month, and can accumulate up to three months of waste   approximately 13,200 pounds or 1,800 gallons   a considerable amount of hazardous waste to be spilled from a tank.

4. Why is it necessary to have a biennial RCRA survey? Would a less frequent collection of this data make sense? 52 Summary of RCRA Sections 3002 and 3004 Authorizing the Hazardous Waste Report Section 3002( a)( 6) requires submission of reports to EPA or the States at least every two years on the:

° Quantities and nature of hazardous wastes that have been generated during the year; and ° Disposition of these hazardous wastes.

Section 3004( a) requires EPA to issue regulations establishing performance standards applicable to owners and operators of facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste that include:

C Reporting and maintaining records of all hazardous wastes treated,

stored, or disposed and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed.

RCRA Sections 3002 and 3004 authorize the Hazardous Waste Report. Both sections require EPA to establish standards for record keeping and reporting of hazardous waste. Section 3002 applies to hazardous waste generators and Section 3004 applies to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The implementing regulations are found at 40 CFR parts 262.40( b) and ( d); 262.41( a)( 1)( 5), ( a)( 8), and ( b); 264.75( a)( e) and ( j); 265.75( a)( e) and ( j);

and 270.30( l)( 9). This is mandatory reporting by the respondents ( see text box below.)

However, EPA will be examining possible options to our current census approach in a second phase of this project (" Smarter Waste Reporting".)

5. In EPA's written response to previous questions. EPA identified the two changes to 53 the biennial report that were part of a NODA. Please summarize the public comments to those two proposals,

and explain why EPA has chosen not to eliminate those data elements from the biennial report in this draft final rule.

As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA chose to address the biennial report changes separately through the Waste Information Needs ( WIN) Initiative. The WIN Initiative is a multi year project which is reinventing RCRA information management. It operates as a partnership among EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, and the states. Both information management experts and implementers of hazardous waste programs participate in the Initiative.

The WIN process addressed both of the changes mentioned in the Burden Reduction NODA.

Change 1: Remove Optional Data Elements from the Current Biennial Reporting forms. Through the WIN process it was determined that these optional requirements should be retained in the biennial report because some States require this information to be reported. Under the RCRA Info data system agreements with the states, EPA has the responsibility to provide a common system for reporting this information to avoid the need for states to design state specific reporting forms. Otherwise, companies operating in multiple states would be burdened with multiple reporting formats when submitting their biennial reports.

Change 2: Eliminate Reporting of RCRA Hazardous Wastes that Are Managed in Units Exempt from RCRA permitting,

we eliminated this requirement in the 2001 cycle of the biennial report.

Commenters to the Burden Reduction NODA ( approximately 20 on these issues) were largely supportive of making both these changes. Many commenters were aware of the WIN process and urged EPA to defer to the recommendations of that joint EPA/ State effort. Only one commenter thought the requirements should be retained in the biennial report.

6. On page 11 of the preamble ( Section III. A. 1) in the paragraph beginning " We believe", change " will be still be available" to " will still be available".

This change has been made. 54 7. On page 21 of the preamble ( section III. B), " EPA states that " we are not convinced that all environmental professionals certified by the ASTM standard would be qualified to perform these engineering evaluations".

Please provide more explanation as to why the ASTM certification is not sufficient.

Under ASTM E 1929 98 Standard Practice for Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Professional:

Accreditation Criteria, it would be possible for CHMMs to be accredited as environmental professionals. EPA has determined that the requirements to become a CHMM are not equivalent to the requirements to become a licensed professional engineer ( see the answer to question 8) and, as such, any regulatory change that would allow a CHMM to make a RCRA certification is not appropriate and will not be finalized.

8. What are drip pads.

A drip pad, as defined in 260.10, is an engineered structure at a wood preserving plant consisting of a curbed,

freedraining base, constructed of non earthen materials and designed to convey preservative kick back or drippage from treated wood, precipitation, and surface water run on to an associated collection system.

Drip pads are exclusive to the wood preserving industry.

8( a). What aspects of drip pad requirements are such that only a professional engineer can make the required certification?

Certifications for drip pads include::

1) the proper design and operation of the drip pad;

2) the results of hydraulic conductivity testing;

3) identification and monitoring of factors adversely affecting hydraulic conductivity;

4) identification and evaluation of chemical compatibility between drip pad material and preservatives;

5) design, construction and installation of synthetic liner to prevent leakage from drip pad into adjacent subsurface soil or groundwater or surface water at any time during the active life of the drip pad; 55 6) evaluation of synthetic liner with regard to chemical properties, strength and thickness and ability to prevent failure due to pressure gradient ( including static head and external hyrogeologic forces), stress of installation, stress of daily operation and stresses from vehicular traffic on drip pad;

7) evaluation of foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement, compression or uplift;

8) design, construction, maintenance and operation of leakage detection systems;

9) design, construction, maintenance and operation of a run on control system capable of preventing flow onto the drip pad during peak discharge from at least a 24 hour, 25 year storm;

10) design, construction, maintenance and operation of run off management system to collect and control at least the water volume resulting from a 24 hour, 25 year storm,. excess capacity to contain any run off that might enter the system;

11) Construction and/ or installation of liners and cover system ( e. g., membranes, sheets, coatings) for uniformity,

damage and imperfections; and 12) Inspection of liners and covers to ensure tight seams and joints and the absence of tears punctures, or blisters 8( b). Why can't a CHMM do the certifications required for drip pads?

The best way to explain why we believe that a CHMM would not be capable of making these certifications is to look at the examination blueprint for CHMM ( attached for your review is the Table of Specifications for the CHMM Examination " Blueprint" which we downloaded from the www. achmm. org website.)

As the examination blueprint reads: " The CHMM examination is a testing instrument designed to evaluate candidates seeking professional certification in the field of hazardous material management. Candidates should be familiar with those laws and regulations and with the science, technology and management issues relating to hazardous materials at any point in their life cycles, as they pertain to environmental protection, safety and health, transportation, and security."

The examination consists of three parts, showing examination weighting in parentheses: Laws and Regulations ( 25%),

Science and Technology ( 35%) and Management ( 40%). In the Science and Technology section of the test there is no indication that coverage is given to the design, construction, operation or maintenance of hazardous waste management 56 units. There is also no coverage regarding engineering fundamentals, principles, concepts, or knowledge. The absence of this material in the CHMM examination raises serious doubts as to the ability of a CHMM to adequately certify engineered structures, as is required for drip pads and other hazardous waste management units. Several states have indicated strong opposition to allowing non professional engineers certify these designs.

Potential Burden Reduction Savings EPA searched the EnviroFAX database to determine how many facilities with drip pads could be affected by this requirement. We found that there are between 14 and 20 facilities that have, or have had, drip pads. Also, please note that because most wood preserving facilities do not generate large volumes of waste, the majority of facilities do not find it difficult to remain exempt from permitting requirements.

SBA Position Re: Tank Inspection Frequencies LQGs : SBA supports the proposal in 2002 to allow weekly inspections without secondary containment.

Upon review of the 2002 proposal, we were unable to find any reference that referred to allowing weekly inspections without secondary containment. As a point of clarification, per 264/ 265.193( A), all new hazardous waste tank systems must have secondary containment and leak detection before being put into service. Existing tanks, i. e., those that were in existence prior to the effective date of the tank regulations ( July 14, 1986), were required to install secondary containment and leak detection systems within 15 years of that effective date ( July 14, 1986). In other words, all LQG hazardous waste tanks have been required to have secondary containment since July 14, 2001.

The original proposal was not predicated on secondary containment, but on the comparison with other programs such as SPCC and UST that did not require daily inspections. UST requires monitoring only every 30 days, and SPCC as specified by the professional engineer.

We will assume this comment refers to SQGs. When we proposed to reduce the inspection frequency for tanks from 57 daily to weekly, we failed to consider how this change would affect the other tank system requirements ( e. g., the design/ size of tank secondary containment; the requirement to identify the presence of accumulated material within 24 hours; and the removal of waste in the secondary containment with 24 hours.) These requirements make clear the need to inspect at least every 24 hours unless there was secondary containment and automatic leak detection, or workplace practices that provided the functional equivalent of these safety systems. It is important to remember that SQGs generate between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month, and can accumulate up to three months of waste   approximately 13,200 pounds or 1,800 gallons   a considerable amount to be spilled from a tank. During development of the final rule we have learned that many facilities, in lieu of leak detection equipment, conduct daily visual inspections to ascertain the integrity of the tanks and monitor primary and secondary containment. These inspections likely could qualify as the type of workplace practices needed in lieu of secondary containment and leak detection.

Also, EPA pointed out that tanks are simpler to design, manage and construct than other RCRA units such as combustion or land disposal units. Further, EPA also requires tanks to be tested initially for integrity ( pre 1986),

or after installation after 1986. This combined with a reasonable inspection schedule provides a reasonable amount of environmental protection. The secondary containment requirement, which does apply to post 1986 tanks, as I understand it, means that more recent vintage tanks have even less justification for daily inspections.

As mentioned earlier, when we proposed to reduce the inspection frequency for tanks from daily to weekly we failed to consider how this change would affect the other tank system requirements, namely, the design/ size of tank secondary containment; the requirement to identify the presence of accumulated material within 24 hours; and the removal of waste in the secondary containment with 24 hours. It is important to remember that SQGs generate between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month, and can accumulate up to three months of waste   approximately 13,200 pounds or 1,800 gallons   a considerable amount to be spilled from a tank. We also failed to realize, until development of the final rule, that many facilities, in lieu of leak detection equipment, conduct daily visual inspections to ascertain the integrity of the tanks and monitor primary and secondary containment to ensure compliance with the other tank provisions. This is important because, as proposed, the ability to reduce self inspection frequency could not be enjoyed by those facilities that used daily visual inspections unless they installed leak detection equipment. Consequently, in the final rule, we added an additional condition that would allow facilities with established work place practices to reduce their inspection 58 self inspection frequency instead of installing leak detection.

In addition, as SOCMA points out in its 1999 comments, in many situations, plant personnel are present in the areas where the tanks are located on an 8 hour basis, if not on a 24 hour basis, making these formal inspections less necessary. Elimination of this requirement alleviates substantial hours dedicated to both the inspection and the recording of these inspections. Resources saved could be dedicated to more important environmental and safety concerns ( such as the establishment of chemical security plans).

With respect to SOCMA's comment, there is no issue here. If plant personnel are present in the areas where tanks are located on an 8 hour or 24 hour basis, this could be defined as " established workplaces practices" and as such, the facility would be able to reduce their self inspection frequency to weekly, as long as a notification and description of the workplace practices was placed in the facility operating record.

Furthermore, I think EPA should eliminate the current incentive for using containers vs. tanks, by equalizing the weekly container requirement with the weekly tank requirement.

( Are containers generally required to be inspected weekly?)

Yes, under 264/ 5.174 container storage must be self inspected at least weekly. We believe we are equalizing the requirement in the manner that can be defended as protective of human health and the environment. There are many reasons that containers may not need as frequent inspections, the most important being that each container holds much less waste than a tank. Therefore the potential consequences of a container leak are much less severe than a tank leak.

SQGs  SBA supports the NODA proposal in 2003 to extend the weekly inspections to all SQG tanks ( and related ancillary equipment) without a secondary containment requirement. No such requirement was suggested as part of the 2003 NODA.

See OMB's question 3. 59 Please note: As the BR rule is currently written, tank systems can reduce their self inspection frequency from daily to weekly if the following conditions are met: 1) tank owners and operators employ leak detection equipment used in conjunction with secondary containment; or 2) in the absence of leak detection equipment, tank owners and operators employ established work place practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur, they will be promptly identified,

and promptly remediated.

Tank system, as defined in 260.10, means a hazardous waste storage or treatment tank and its associated ancillary equipment and containment Inspection Frequency Reduction to Monthly for Performance Track Case by case determinations are too costly for both the facilities and the state agencies. Performance Track facilities are very few in number, and should be rewarded for their effort in getting into Performance Track.

There is not a significant need for further state review.

We disagree, as we discussed earlier, case by case determinations have always been part of allowing reduced inspection frequencies. Although the facility is a member of Performance Track, it is not likely to be a large burden for the state or the Performance Track facility if done on a case by case basis.

EPA could include a requirement that the monthly inspections would revert to the current requirements ( weekly?) upon the discovery of any significant tank spill or RCRA noncompliance. In other words, a performance based standard could determine the continuation of eligibility for the reduced inspection requirements.

The discovery of either a significant tank spill or RCRA noncompliance are exactly the types of situations we hope to avoid with our regulations. EPA believes that prevention of releases is preferable to spill clean up, both environmentally 60 and economically. It is unclear how this type of option could be considered protective of human health and the environment.

Certified Hazardous Materials Managers SBA supports the 2003 NODA proposal to allow CHMMs to certify 2 standards: drip pad evaluation and drip pads inspections. ( The third standard in the NODA is no longer relevant because it is outdated.)

Please refer to our response to OMB's question 8. l In addition, we support the 12/ 05/ 03 comments of the Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers that CHMMs should be eligible to perform 4 of the 11 other functions, and retain the existing PE requirements for the remaining 7 functions.

The certifications you referenced include:

264/ 5.115 Certification of closure.

264/ 5.120 Certification of post closure.

264.280( b) Land Treatment units, certification of closure; and 266.103( b)( 2)( ii)( D) This standard is no longer relevant since it is outdated ( sunset August 21, 1991)

We disagree with the commenter. As stated in the preamble, certification of final closure is the final step in the closure process and triggers the release of the owner or operator from financial responsibility requirements for closure and third party liability coverage requirements. As such, objective closure and post closure certifications are essential for avoiding any potential conflicts of interest and ensuring protection of human health and the environment and that more specific requirements concerning the qualification of the certifying party are necessary to ensure the adequacy of the certification. We, therefore, require that certifications be obtained from independent, registered, professional engineers ( i. e., registered professional engineers not in the employ of the owner or operator), consistent with requirements under subtitle C and other federally mandated certification programs ( e. g., Clean Water Act grants). 61 SBA is referred to the BR preamble for additional discussion on this point.

The Institute of Professional Environmental Practice ( December 15, 2003 comments) also selected the same 4 requirements as appropriate for non engineers. We believe that both sets of comments reached appropriate conclusions about the expertise of these certified individuals. All of these individuals are subject to approval by a board, using the ASTM standard, developed using a consensus process. Furthermore, EPA's draft final rule is inconsistent with the recently promulgated all appropriate inquiry ( AAI) rule allowing non engineers to perform both phase I and phase II audits. If non engineers can help determine facility liability under RCRA and CERCLA,

then certainly they should be able to make these types of professional environmental judgments under RCRA.

Given that this determination was reached in a negotiated rulemaking among all affected parties, this judgment should be given even more weight.

This rule has no relationship to the design, installation, operation and maintenance of hazardous waste management units. These activities require engineering knowledge and judgement.

One important thing to keep in mind is that the all appropriate inquiries requirements do not ( in any way what so ever)

require the environmental professional to render any judgment or opinion regarding RCRA or CERCLA compliance or liability. The all appropriate inquiries requirements include research activities and a site investigation similar to a Phase I environmental site assessment. No compliance evaluation and no assessment of engineering or technical requirements ( which may inherently require the expertise of an engineer or geologist). As we described earlier, many states were very concerned about the potential for unqualified individuals to allowed to provide these certifications, and were unwilling to take on the unfunded mandate of evaluating the qualifications of non PEs.

Independent Professional Engineer Requirement We are persuaded by the original the 2003 NODA that the independent PE requirement be dropped. In particular,

the 2003 NODA observed that more recent decisions by other Federal agencies did not require an independent PE: FHA regarding bridge safety and OSHA regarding ramp designs. EPA also observed that more recent EPA 62 certification requirements, containment building design certification ( promulgated 8/ 92) and BIF data evaluations ( this requirement is no longer in effect) did not require an independent engineer. Further, the SPCC and Storm Water rules do not require independent PEs. These professionals are also subject to scrutiny from their insurers and state boards, and therefore the independence requirement appears excessive. Commenters on the original proposal indicated that " this would save money without compromising environmental safety." NODA at page 61667.

We disagree. Please refer to the discussion in the BR preamble.

LDR Generator Waste Determinations SBA Advocacy supports the deletion of the requirement for generators to perform a waste analysis that in many respects is redundant ( section 268.7( a)( 1)). Because TSDFs are ultimately responsible for assuring that waste is properly treated and disposed of, and modern TSDFs are high volume, sophisticated business enterprises, it is appropriate that they bear the burden of waste analysis. We are not persuaded that generators are always the cheapest party to conduct the analysis. Moreover, TSDFs could also arrange to have a generator conduct the waste analyses if it were more efficient in a particular situation.

By not requiring both the generator and TSDF to perform the analysis, EPA would allow the most efficient arrangements to be made. At the end of the day, the TSDF is still responsible for properly analyzing and dealing with the waste.

See response to Question 1 from OMB.

David Nicholas/ DC/ USEPA/ US 12/ 19/ 2005 03: 33 PM 63 To " Belton, Keith B." < Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov>

cc Subject answers on burden reduction Answers to your questions are attached. Our team is available to discuss anytime except all day Thurs. Thanks.

RCRA Burden Reduction Final Rule EPA Responses to Follow up Questions by OMB/ SBA December 2, 2005 On December 2, 2005, EPA in a conference call with OMB and SBA discussed the responses to questions posed by OMB/ SBA on a November 23 conference call. As a result of these discussions several follow up questions were asked by OMB/ SBA. Below are the original questions from November 23, as well as the follow up question and EPA's response.

1. Original OMB Question from November 23, 2005 and EPA Response:

Recommend that the final rule eliminate the following waste analysis requirement for generators:

268.7( a)( 1). Eliminating this requirement was proposed. Providing generators with greater flexibility is likely to reduce burden to at least some extent, even if it cannot be quantified.

Consequences of Dropping LDR Generator Waste Analysis 64 Eliminating the 268.7( a)( 1) generator waste analysis requirement, as suggested, undermines the notification and certification framework that we have set up for generators, and will limit existing generator flexibility to test wastes on their own or use existing knowledge of the waste stream to establish whether the waste requires treatment under LDR. Since there will be no EPA enforceable certification for generators, TSDFs have told us that they will protect themselves from enforcement liability by conducting more in house analysis of wastes. The cost of these analyses will be passed on to the generators, which will have the effect of increasing costs on generators.

The certification described in 268.7( a) ( 1) is closely aligned with the certifications described in 268.7 ( a)( 2) and ( a)

( 3). By eliminating the provisions of ( a)( 1) we would needlessly complicate those other certifications, or simply assure that TSDFs conduct in house analysis to satisfy the entire 268.7 ( a) framework. We believe this change could actually increase burden or costs on the regulated community, which is inconsistent with the goals of this rulemaking and, therefore, do not believe the change should be made.

Follow up Question from OMB:

Does EPA ever enforce on LDR requirement 268.7( a)( 1)?

Upon consultation with Regional enforcement attorneys, OECA has determined that failure to comply with 268.7( a)( 1) is a fairly common violation in RCRA enforcement cases. 65 2. Original OMB Question from November 23, 2005 and EPA Response:

Recommend that Performance Track facilities should be allowed to inspect monthly, without a case by case determination. Please explain why a subset of non PT companies ( e. g., those with an exemplary environmental record) should not be excluded from monthly self inspections.

In the October 29, 2003 NODA, we proposed to allow reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track facilities, up to monthly on a case by case basis. We have never discussed an option to remove the case by case criteria for inspection frequencies greater than one week for any facility. As such, this type of change would be outside the scope of this rulemaking and could create serious notice and comment issues if the rule were challenged. Furthermore, EPA believes such oversight on a site specific basis is needed to protect human health and the environment due to the potential, in some scenarios, for significant spills.

One of the principal arguments for limiting the case by case option only to Performance Track members was the burden it would otherwise impose on authorized states to evaluate other facilities ( an unfunded federal mandate.)

States believed very strongly that this option should not be offered to all facilities because of the burden it would create for them.

The option of allowing for a universe of non Performance Track companies ( e. g., those with an exemplary environmental record) to be excluded from monthly self inspections has its own set of drawbacks to consider: ( 1) a process or mechanism would have to be developed that would define " exemplary environmental record;" 2) such criteria would have to undergo notice and comment; and 3) the additional burden imposed on States or EPA to review and evaluate the applications. We expect that the states would reject any new burden for them under this as another unfunded mandate.

Follow up Question from OMB/ SBA: 66 Could you confer with OGC and get their opinion whether EPA could go forward with an option to allow Performance Track facilities to reduce their inspection frequencies to monthly without State approval. Is this a logical outgrowth of the comments?