RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT BURDEN REDUCTION INITIATIVE FINAL RULE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS November 4, 2005 1 Based on OMB review, we have modified several other parts of the rule. These changes are not reflected in the cost savings calculated in this document, however we believe that the burden reduction savings for these changes will be negligible. Changes made to the rule include: 1) refining the application process for Performance Track member facilities to reduced their inspection frequencies for selected hazardous waste management units; 2) the removal of the term " independent" from the certification requirement identified in the rule, and 3) adding the option of allowing a hazardous waste generator to allow a permitted treatment facility to make the LDR determination under 268. Updates to This Cost Benefit Analysis EPA completed the following cost benefit analysis ( CBA) on July 1, 2005, to estimate the annual hour and cost burden impacts to industry under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative Final Rule. Since then, the rule was modified based on Final Agency Review. Because of these modifications, some of the information in the CBA is now obsolete, including burden estimates in Exhibits ES 2, ES 3, 3 2, 3 3, 4 1, and 4 2, as well as the discussions supporting them. 1 This page identifies changes to the rule that affect industry burden. It then presents the rule's burden impacts as updated to reflect these changes.

Changes to the Rule The following changes were made to the rule subsequent to completion of the July 1, 2005, CBA:

° EPA modified the rule's amendments at 40 CFR 264.195( d), 265.195( c), and 265.201( d), which establish a weekly inspection schedule for tank system facilities in lieu of a daily inspection schedule. Under EPA's modifications, these provisions now require that the use of the weekly inspection schedule must be documented in the facility's operating record. This documentation must include a description of the established workplace practices at the facility.

° EPA had considered modifying the following requirements so owner/ operators could keep records on site instead of submitting them. EPA has now decided to retain the original requirement to submit the data:  40 CFR 265.93( c)( 1)  comparisons for upgradient wells showing significant increase ( or pH decrease) for indicator parameters in groundwater.  40 CFR 265.94( a)( 2)( iii)  results of evaluations of groundwater surface elevations and description of response to that evaluation where applicable. ° EPA had considered eliminating the following requirements from the regulations, but has decided to retain them:  40 CFR 264.1036  submittal of semi annual report on air emissions from process vents.  40 CFR 264.1065( a)  submittal of semi annual report on air emission from equipment leaks.

Updated Industry Burden Impacts EPA has updated the CBA's burden estimates to reflect the rule changes identified above. Tables 1 and 2 present the updated burden estimates. Because of uncertainties regarding industry behavior under the final rule, EPA performed a bounding analysis to estimate a range of savings. As shown in the tables, EPA has estimated that the total annual hour savings under the final rule ranges from approximately 0.02 million to 0.04 million hours. The total annual cost savings under the final rule ranges from approximately $ 2.18 million to $ 3.12 million.

Table 1 Summary of Total Annual Savings under the Final Rule: Low Adoption Rate Scenario a Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars)

3,390,482 $ 328,693,922 3,368,058 $ 326,512,953 22,425 $ 2,180,969 a Exhibit contains rounding error.

Table 2 Summary of Total Annual Savings under the Final Rule: High Adoption Rate Scenario a Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars)

3,390,482 $ 328,693,922 3,352,796 $ 325,575,407 37,687 $ 3,118,515 a Exhibit contains rounding error. ES 1 Exhibit ES 1 Major Components of the Final Rule U The amount of time records must be kept U Certification by an independent, qualified, professional engineer U Option to follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance U Option to follow the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) regulations for emergency response U Clarifications and elimination of obsolete regulatory language U Elimination of selected recordkeeping and reporting requirements U Decreased inspection frequency for hazardous waste management units U Selected changes to the requirements for record retention and submittal of records U Changes to the requirements for document submittals U Reduced frequency for report submittals Executive Summary Introduction On May 22, 1995, Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( PRA), P. L. 104 13, which amends 44 U. S. C. Chapter 35. In the PRA, Congress directs all Federal agencies to become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public. " Burden" is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency ( Section 3502( 2) of the PRA).

In response to this mandate, EPA conducted a comprehensive review of its regulations at 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279 and developed a final rule that would reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden that RCRA regulations impose on the States, the public, and the regulated community. The major components of the final rule are presented in Exhibit ES 1.

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

Annual Hour and Cost Savings under the Final Rule In analyzing the annual hour and cost impacts under the final rule, EPA first ascertained the hour and cost burden under the regulations that are being amended by the rule. The hour and cost burden under these regulations is estimated in nine of the Agency's Information 2 Pursuant to the PRA, EPA is required to obtain OMB approval before it can require the regulated community to submit information or retain records. To obtain OMB approval, EPA must submit an ICR that describes, among other things, the need, use, burden hours, and costs of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

3 Several of the ICRs are two or three years old and use differing assumptions to derive their unit costs for labor, capital, and operations and maintenance. For this CBA, EPA revised each ICR's unit cost assumptions to be consistent across all ICRs. EPA also updated their costs to 2005 levels using employment cost indices developed by the U. S. Department of Labor and gross domestic product deflators developed by OMB, as appropriate.

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

Because of uncertainties regarding industry behavior under the final rule, EPA performed a bounding analysis to estimate a range of savings. As shown in Exhibits ES 2 and ES 3, EPA has estimated that the total annual hour savings under the final rule ranges from approximately 0.04 million to 0.05 million hours. The total annual cost savings under the final rule ranges from approximately $ 3.10 million to $ 4.04 million.

Exhibit ES 2 Summary of Total Annual Savings under the Final Rule: Low Adoption Rate Scenario a Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars)

3,390,482 $ 328,724,973 3,351,645 $ 325,622,354 38,838 $ 3,102,619 a Exhibit contains rounding error. ES 3 Exhibit ES 3 Summary of Total Annual Savings under the Final Rule: High Adoption Rate Scenario a Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Cost ( in 2005 dollars)

3,390,482 $ 328,724,973 3,336,380 $ 324,684,624 54,103 $ 4,040,349 a Exhibit contains rounding error.

Environmental Quality Implications EPA has considered the environmental quality implications of the final rule and concluded that the regulatory changes will have minimal impact on the protectiveness of the RCRA regulations. The final rule clarifies certain requirements and eliminates or simplifies requirements. Paperwork requirements have been eliminated if they entail information that is obscure, inconsequential, or infrequently submitted to or used by regulators. Note, however, that the final rule does not curtail the right of regulatory agencies to request any information desired. Waste handlers must continue to keep on site records of their waste management activities and make them available to regulators when requested. As such, the rule does not limit regulators' or the public's ability to learn what is happening at a facility.

In addition, the final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators of tank systems may conduct weekly inspections of ( 1) the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste and ( 2) the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation).

Tank systems must meet either of two conditions in order to be inspected weekly: ( 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 workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated. Owners and operators choosing one of these options, to reduce inspection frequencies, must document the option selected in their operating record.

EPA believes that adequate incentives and controls are in place such that the weekly inspection requirements are reasonably protective. First, EPA emphasizes that it is not changing ES 4 the existing requirement that data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment ( e. g., pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) must be inspected at least once each operating day to ensure that the tank system is being operating according to its design. EPA feels that this requirement is necessary in order to ensure compliance with requirements for the detection of leaks and spills within 24 hours.

In addition, EPA expects tank facilities to act responsibly toward their property and equipment to prevent and detect releases, partly because of concerns about increasing insurance premiums and the cost of RCRA corrective action at permitting and closure. Because of them, EPA does not expect owner/ operators to reduce their inspections to weekly unless this would be protective, given the condition of the tank and other relevant factors.

EPA expects that most releases that do occur from primary tank systems will be captured by the secondary containment system. Tank systems must satisfy design and operating requirements that minimize the threat of a release. In addition, tank systems must have secondary containment and a leak detection system to adopt weekly inspections. So long as the secondary containment system is in adequate condition, releases to the environment should be infrequent. This is particularly true because the leak detection system will alert the owner/ operator of a release, in order for prompt removal.

EPA believes that a number of tank releases result from normal wear and tear on the tank system ( e. g., cracks in the secondary containment due to cycles in the weather, a tank whose structural integrity deteriorates over time). EPA believes that the modified inspection schedule is sufficient to detect these problems. As described above, if a release does occur from the primary tank system, EPA is confident that the daily inspection of monitoring data and the weekly inspection for corrosion and releases, as well as the requirements for secondary containment, automatic leak detection systems, and other controls will minimize the chance that it could migrate outside the tank system to the environment.

EPA has not examined the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements for National Performance Track Program facilities. Each member facility has particular approaches for achieving regulatory compliance and continual improvement. Environmental implications would depend, at a minimum, on the protectiveness of a facility's existing procedures for its hazardous waste management units, as well as how these procedures might be affected under the monthly inspection requirements, if at all. This information was not available for this analysis. Therefore, this analysis does not examine the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements. Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.1 Background and Need for Regulatory Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.2 Purpose and Organization of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2. ANNUAL HOUR AND COST BURDEN TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY UNDER THE BASELINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Assumptions Used in Analyzing Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.2 Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 3. ANNUAL HOUR AND COST BURDEN TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY UNDER THE FINAL RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Assumptions Used in Analyzing Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4. ANNUAL SAVINGS IN HOUR AND COST BURDEN TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY UNDER THE FINAL RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 Annual Hour and Cost Burden Savings to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.2 Limitations of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4.3 Burden Impacts of the Final Rule Not Included in the Quantitative Analysis . . 4 5 5. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 6. OTHER POLICY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 6.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 6.2 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 6.3 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 6.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 6.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 6.7 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 6.8 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6.9 Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6.10 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 APPENDIX A: Summary of Regulatory Requirements Covered in Affected ICRs APPENDIX B Modifications to the Baseline Burden Estimated Under the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR APPENDIX C: Crosswalk of Regulatory Changes to the ICRs Affected by the Final Rule APPENDIX D: Regulatory Changes to RCRA Information Collection Requirements and EPA's Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Waste Handler Hour and Cost Burden 4 The Notices of Data Availability were published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1999 ( 64 FR 32859) and October 29, 2003 ( 68 FR 61662). The Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2002 ( 67 FR 2518).

1 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Need for Regulatory Action The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regulates the generation and management of hazardous waste under 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279 using the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ( RCRA), as amended. As part of its hazardous waste regulations, EPA has established recordkeeping and reporting requirements that allow the Agency to enforce and ensure compliance with the regulations.

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

In response to this mandate, EPA conducted a comprehensive review of its regulations at 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279 and developed ideas for eliminating or streamlining a number of recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the regulations. As part of this process, EPA consulted with a small number of State experts on the validity of the ideas, and whether these ideas would detract from EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. In addition, EPA sought public input on its burden reduction ideas through two Notices of Data Availability and a Proposed Rulemaking. 4 Based on comments received from stakeholders, as well as its own regulatory analyses, EPA has developed a final rule to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden that RCRA regulations impose on the States, the public, and the regulated community. The regulatory changes contained in the final rule will have minimal impact on the many protections that EPA has established over the years for human health and the environment. At the same time, the final rule eliminates non essential paperwork. A summary of the major components of the final rule is presented in Exhibit 1 1. 1 2 Exhibit 1 1 Summary of Major Components of the Final Rule Regulatory Change Description of Regulatory Change The amount of time records must be kept Many of the recordkeeping requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities ( TSDFs) mandate record retention for the life of the facility. In its final rule, EPA has reduced the length of time waste handlers must retain certain records on site to three years or five years for hazardous waste combustion units. ( e. g., operating record requirements at 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73). EPA also has increased the record retention time for a selected number of documents for interim status facilities.

Certification by an independent, qualified, professional engineer Numerous regulations require generators and TSDFs to obtain an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer's certification, as specified ( e. g., to certify the structural integrity of existing or new tank systems). In its rule, EPA has streamlined certain RCRA certification requirements to allow an independent, qualified, professional engineer to conduct selected certifications. EPA also has amended the closure and post closure requirements to allow an independent professional engineer to sign these certifications.

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

Option to follow the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) regulations for emergency response LQGs and TSDFs must train their employees in emergency response procedures. EPA has modified the RCRA regulations to allow waste handlers to have the option of complying with either the RCRA or OSHA requirements for emergency response procedures.

Clarifications and elimination of obsolete regulatory language EPA is modifying specified regulatory language by eliminating obsolete terms and/ or rewording language to make it clearer. EPA also is providing regulatory clarifications to several LDR requirements.

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

Decreased inspection frequency for hazardous waste management units Under many RCRA inspection requirements, EPA specifies a frequency at which waste handlers must inspect their facility and equipment. Where applicable, EPA has reduced the inspection frequency for hazardous waste tank systems from daily to weekly. In addition, EPA is allowing facilities in the National Performance Track Program to reduce their inspection frequencies from daily or weekly to monthly, on a case by case basis, for tanks and tank systems, containers, containment buildings, and areas subject to spills. Regulatory Change Description of Regulatory Change 5 Pursuant to the PRA, EPA is required to obtain OMB approval before it can require the regulated community to submit information or retain records. To obtain OMB approval, EPA must submit an ICR that describes, among other things, the need, use, burden hours, and costs of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

6 Several of the ICRs are two or three years old and use differing assumptions to derive their unit costs for labor, capital, and operations and maintenance. For this CBA, EPA revised each ICR's unit cost assumptions to be consistent across all ICRs. EPA also updated their costs to 2005 levels using employment cost indices developed by the U. S. Department of Labor and gross domestic product deflators developed by OMB, as appropriate.

1 3 Selected changes to the requirements for record retention and submittal of records EPA is modifying certain requirements under which waste handlers must keep records on site and submit these same records to EPA. EPA is specifying certain records that waste handlers need keep only on site.

Changes to the requirements for document submittals EPA has streamlined several requirements to reduce the number of documents that are submitted to the Agency for review.

Reduced frequency for report submittals Under the final rule, EPA has reduced the submittal frequency of certain documents ( e. g., from semi annually to annually).

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

In analyzing the annual hour and cost impacts under the final rule, EPA first ascertained the hour and cost burden under the regulations that are being amended by the rule. The hour and cost burden under these regulations is estimated in nine of the Agency's Information Collection Requests ( ICRs). 5 These ICRs estimate the annual hour and cost burden ( i. e., inclusive of labor, capital, and operation and maintenance costs) to the regulated community in carrying out specific RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements ( e. g., compiling information, submitting reports, maintaining records). 6 The total annual hour and cost burden estimated by these nine ICRs forms the analytical " baseline" of this analysis.

EPA then estimated the annual hour and cost burden under the final rule by incorporating revised assumptions and data into each of the ICRs' spreadsheets, as relevant, and computing a new total annual hour and cost burden. These revised assumptions and data are based on EPA's best understanding of the behavior of waste handlers under the final rule. 1 4 Finally, EPA compared baseline and final rule hour and cost burden to estimate impacts ( i. e., savings) under the final rule. [ Note that this document does not estimate annual hour and cost burden savings to regulatory authorities under the final rule.]

The remainder of the document is organized as follows:

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

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

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

C Chapter 5 Briefly discusses the environmental implications of the final rule.

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

C Chapter 7 Lists the references used in the analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For this CBA, EPA revised each ICR's hourly labor rates to be consistent across all ICRs. Following are the hourly labor rates used in estimating the labor costs in each of the nine ICRs affected by the final rule:

° Legal staff $ 117.15 ° Managerial staff $ 85.52 ° Technical staff $ 61.43 ° Clerical staff $ 31.26 The above hourly labor rates are in 2005 dollars.

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

Operation and Maintenance Costs  O& M costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continuously over the life of the ICR. They are defined by the PRA as " the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O& M or purchasing services." For example, O& M costs may include photocopying and postage, or purchase of contractor or lab services. O& M costs may also include the general upkeep of capital equipment. 2 3 2.2 Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Baseline A summary of the annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the baseline is presented in Exhibit 2 1. As shown in the exhibit, the total annual burden under the baseline is approximately 3.39 million hours and $ 328.72 million. The primary burden comes from the land disposal restrictions ( LDRs) at 40 CFR Part 268, which account for 24 percent of the total annual hour burden and 34 percent of the total annual cost burden.

Exhibit 2 1 Summary of Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Baseline a ICR Name ICR Number Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars)

Hazardous Waste Generator Standards b 820.09 735,698 $ 45,293,380 Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 96,913 $ 23,946,842 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 21,511 $ 2,232,286 Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 307,949 $ 45,674,444 Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 822,708 $ 112,237,909 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 719,059 $ 48,658,340 Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types 1572.06 669,476 $ 46,946,045 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits 1573.10 12,209 $ 3,380,662 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 4,959 $ 355,066 Total 3,390,482 $ 328,724,973 a Exhibit contains rounding error. b The hour and cost burden for this ICR includes the currently approved burden, in addition to the burden for generators to conduct tank system inspections under 40 CFR 265.193( f), 265.195, and 265.201( c). Refer to Appendix B for additional information on these requirements and modifications. 3 1 3. ANNUAL HOUR AND COST BURDEN TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY UNDER THE FINAL RULE This chapter examines the annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the final rule. Section 3.1 discusses the analytical assumptions used in estimating the annual hour and cost burden under the final rule. Section 3.2 presents the annual hour and cost burden under the final rule. See Appendix C for a crosswalk of the regulatory changes to each of the nine ICRs affected by the final rule.

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

Exhibit 3 1 Summary of Basic Analytical Assumptions under the Final Rule Regulatory Change Analytical Assumptions under the Final Rule The amount of time records must be kept This CBA assumes that, on average, a waste handler places the typical document in its file cabinet once, rather than retrieving and re filing it on an on going basis. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, the CBA assumes that waste handlers would see no change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change.

Certification by an independent, qualified, professional engineer The final rule deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Thus, this CBA assumes that waste handlers will experience no change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change.

Option to follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance Although EPA expects this regulatory change to facilitate compliance, it is unlikely that the change will result in any significant burden reduction. Waste handlers still have to follow each of the individual requirements for creating a contingency plan under the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance. Thus, this CBA assumes that waste handlers will not see a change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change. Regulatory Change Analytical Assumptions under the Final Rule 3 2 Option to follow the OSHA regulations for emergency response EPA is amending 40 CFR 264.16( a)( 3) and 265.16( a)( 3) to have facilities comply with the OSHA regulations for emergency response training, in lieu of RCRA specific training. This CBA assumes that waste handlers will see no change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change, since waste handlers are currently satisfying RCRA training requirements through OSHA training, where possible.

Clarifications and elimination of obsolete regulatory language The regulatory change modifies specified regulatory language by eliminating obsolete terms and/ or rewording the language to make it clearer. This CBA assumes that waste handlers will see no change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change.

Elimination of selected recordkeeping and reporting requirements This CBA assumes that waste handlers will see a 100 percent reduction in hour and cost burden ( i. e., no hour or cost burden would be incurred by waste handlers) under the specific requirements being eliminated, since waste handlers will no longer have to conduct the required activities. Regulatory Change Analytical Assumptions under the Final Rule 3 3 Decreased inspection frequency for hazardous waste management units The final rule reduces the self inspection frequencies for hazardous waste tanks from daily to weekly, as specified. For purposes of this analysis, this CBA assumes that some large quantity generators will opt to reduce their inspections and experience an hour and cost burden reduction under this regulatory change. Because data on the number of large quantity generators with leak detection systems were not readily available for analysis, EPA performed limited consultations with the Regions and State. It used their feedback as well as its best judgment to perform a bounding analysis to estimate impacts under a low and high adoption rate scenario. From its consultations, EPA found that automatic leak detection systems are not widely used; rather, the majority of facilities use other methods that might not qualify under the rule. In addition, EPA believes that some sites will continue to conduct daily inspections under the rule, regardless of their leak detection systems, because of standard tank operating procedures and/ or a desire to be proactive toward the environment. Hence, EPA has estimated 25% adoption as a lower bound ( i. e., 25% of large quantity generators with tank systems will adopt the reduced inspections) and 50% adoption as an upper bound.

This CBA assumes that TSDFs with tanks will see no change in hour or cost burden under this regulatory change. This reflects EPA's belief that, in general, TSDFs will continue full daily inspections, regardless of the weekly requirement. EPA believes that TSDFs are generally proactive toward their property ( e. g., land and facilities), largely because of corrective action requirements at permitting and closure. They also are knowledgeable of and responsible toward their equipment because it is central to their primary business operations ( i. e., waste management). In addition, EPA has found that TSDFs have standard operating procedures, schedules, and designated waste management staff to operate and maintain their waste management units. It might not be practicable or cost effective for them to revise these plans in order to relax their inspections. In this regard, even if a TSDF reduced its inspection frequency, it would incur incremental burden for modifying its permit, revising its plans, and reallocating staff. This incremental burden would partially if not completely offset the savings, especially in the near term.

In addition to weekly inspection frequencies for hazardous waste tanks, the final rule is allowing facilities in the National Performance Track Program to reduce their inspection frequencies, up to monthly, on a case by case basis, for tanks and tanks systems, containers, containment buildings, and spill areas. This analysis assumes that no facilities in the program will apply to reduce their inspection frequency.

Selected changes to the requirements for record retention and submittal of records Under the final rule, EPA is modifying certain requirements under which waste handlers must keep records on site and submit these same records to EPA. EPA will now require waste handlers only to keep these records on site. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that waste handlers will see a reduction in labor hour and cost burden for no longer submitting the records. They also will see a cost savings for avoiding postage fees. Regulatory Change Analytical Assumptions under the Final Rule 3 4 Changes to the requirements for document submittals Under the final rule, EPA is specifying that waste handlers must keep certain documents on site, instead of submitting them to the regulatory authority. It is assumed that waste handlers will see no change in hour burden from this regulatory change because the burden of submitting the document will be replaced by the burden of recordkeeping. They will see a cost savings for avoiding postage fees.

Reduced frequency for report submittals Under the final rule, EPA is reducing the reporting frequency for specified reports ( e. g., from semi annually to annually). The CBA assumes that waste handlers will see a proportionate reduction in hour and cost burden under this regulatory change ( e. g., a 50% burden reduction for a change from semi annual to annual submittal).

3.2 Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule A summary of the total annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the final rule is presented in this section. As with the baseline analysis in Chapter 2, the exhibits in this chapter present the annual burden for each of the nine ICRs affected by the rule.

Note that, as explained in Exhibit 3 1, EPA performed a bounding analysis to estimate burden impacts to generators under the rule's weekly inspection requirements for tank systems. Specifically, EPA revised the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR by estimating 25 percent adoption under a lower bound scenario ( i. e., 25 percent of large quantity generator tank facilities will adopt the weekly inspections) and, alternatively, 50 percent adoption under an upper bound scenario.

Because of these two adoption scenarios, EPA presents the annual hour and cost burden of the final rule in two exhibits, which are described in the following subsections.

3.2.1 Low Adoption Rate Scenario Exhibit 3 2 summarizes the annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the final rule, assuming the low adoption rate for weekly generator tank inspections ( i. e., 25% of large quantity generators with tank systems, as reflected in the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR). As shown in the exhibit, the total annual burden to the regulated community under the final rule is estimated to be approximately 3.35 million hours and $ 325.62 million. 3 5 Exhibit 3 2 Summary of Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule ( Low Adoption Rate Scenario for Generator Tank Inspections) a ICR Name ICR Number Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars)

Hazardous Waste Generator Standards b 820.09 718,092 $ 44,216,142 Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 95,197 $ 23,071,270 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 21,308 $ 2,219,699 Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 307,737 $ 45,590,068 Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 821,002 $ 112,160,263 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 718,976 $ 48,653,467 Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types 1572.06 652,165 $ 45,975,716 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits 1573.10 12,209 $ 3,380,662 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 4,959 $ 355,066 Total 3,351,645 $ 325,622,354 a Exhibit contains rounding error. b The hour and cost burden for this ICR includes the currently approved burden, in addition to the burden for generators to conduct tank system inspections under 40 CFR 265.193( f), 265.195, and 265.201( c), as amended by the final rule.

3.2.2 High Adoption Rate Scenario Exhibit 3 3 summarizes the annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the final rule, assuming the high adoption rate for weekly generator tank inspection ( i. e., 50% of large quantity generators with tank systems, as reflected in the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR). As shown in the exhibit, the total annual burden to the regulated community under the final rule is estimated to be approximately 3.34 million hours and $ 324.68 million. 3 6 Exhibit 3 3 Summary of Annual Hour and Cost Burden to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule ( High Adoption Rate Scenario for Generator Tank Inspections) a ICR Name ICR Number Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars)

Hazardous Waste Generator Standards b 820.09 702,827 $ 43,278,412 Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 95,197 $ 23,071,270 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 21,308 $ 2,219,699 Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 307,737 $ 45,590,068 Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 821,002 $ 112,160,263 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 718,976 $ 48,653,467 Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types 1572.06 652,165 $ 45,975,716 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits 1573.10 12,209 $ 3,380,662 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 4,959 $ 355,066 Total 3,336,380 $ 324,684,624 a Exhibit contains rounding error. b The hour and cost burden for this ICR includes the currently approved burden, in addition to the burden for generators to conduct tank system inspections under 40 CFR 265.193( f), 265.195, and 265.201( c), as amended by the final rule. 4 1 4. ANNUAL SAVINGS IN HOUR AND COST BURDEN TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY UNDER THE FINAL RULE This chapter examines the savings in annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community under the final rule. Section 4.1 compares the total annual hour and cost burden under the baseline and the final rule to derive annual savings. Section 4.2 discusses limitations of the analysis. Section 4.3 discusses burden impacts of the final rule not included in the analysis under Section 4.1.

4.1 Annual Hour and Cost Burden Savings to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule EPA compared baseline and final rule annual hour and cost burden to the regulated community to derive annual savings. Because of the two adoption scenarios examined under the final rule, EPA presents the annual hour and cost burden savings in two exhibits: Exhibit 4 1 for the low adoption rate scenario and Exhibit 4 2 for the high adoption rate scenario.

As shown in the exhibits, the total annual hour burden to the regulated community under the baseline is approximately 3.39 million hours. The total annual hour burden under the final rule ranges from approximately 3.34 million hours to 3.35 million hours. Thus, the total annual hour burden savings under the final rule ranges from approximately 0.04 million hours to 0.05 million hours.

The total annual cost burden to the regulated community under the baseline is approximately $ 328.72 million. The total annual cost burden under the final rule ranges from approximately $ 324.68 million to $ 325.62 million. Thus, the total annual cost savings under the final rule ranges from approximately $ 3.10 million to $ 4.04 million.

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

C The overwhelming majority of annual savings under the rule results from EPA's regulatory changes affecting the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR. The changes in the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR would result in annual hour burden savings ranging from 17,606 hours to 32,871 hours. They also would result in annual cost savings ranging from approximately $ 1.10 million to $ 2.0 million. Most of the savings under the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR arise from the reduction in tank inspection frequency from daily to weekly, as specified, for qualified generators with tank systems. EPA estimates that 7,070 generators conduct tank inspections each year. Of these sites, EPA estimates that between 426 and 851 would adopt the reduced inspections and see a reduction in hour and cost burden under the rule. 4 2 Exhibit 4 1 Summary of Annual Savings to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule ( Low Adoption Rate Scenario for Generator Tank Inspections) a ICR Name ICR Number Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars)

Hazardous Waste Generator Standards b 820.09 735,698 $ 45,293,380 718,092 $ 44,216,142 17,606 $ 1,077,238 Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 96,913 $ 23,946,842 95,197 $ 23,071,270 1,716 $ 875,572 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 21,511 $ 2,232,286 21,308 $ 2,219,699 203 $ 12,587 Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements,

and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 307,949 $ 45,674,444 307,737 $ 45,590,068 212 $ 84,376 Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 822,708 $ 112,237,909 821,002 $ 112,160,263 1,706 $ 77,646 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 719,059 $ 48,658,340 718,976 $ 48,653,467 84 $ 4,873 Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements,

and Special Waste Processes and Types 1572.06 669,476 $ 46,946,045 652,165 $ 45,975,716 17,311 $ 970,328 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications,

and Special Permits 1573.10 12,209 $ 3,380,662 12,209 $ 3,380,662 0 $ 0 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 4,959 $ 355,066 4,959 $ 355,066 0 $ 0 Total 3,390,482 $ 328,724,973 3,351,645 $ 325,622,354 38,838 $ 3,102,619 a Exhibit contains rounding error.

b The hour and cost burden for this ICR includes the currently approved burden, in addition to the burden for generators to conduct tank system inspections under 40 CFR 265.193( f),

265.195, and 265.201( c). 4 3 Exhibit 4 2 Summary of Annual Savings to the Regulated Community under the Final Rule ( High Adoption Rate Scenario for Generator Tank Inspections) a ICR Name ICR Number Baseline Final Rule Savings Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars) Annual Hours Annual Costs ( in 2005 dollars)

Hazardous Waste Generator Standards b 820.09 735,698 $ 45,293,380 702,827 $ 43,278,412 32,871 $ 2,014,968 Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 96,913 $ 23,946,842 95,197 $ 23,071,270 1,716 $ 875,572 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 21,511 $ 2,232,286 21,308 $ 2,219,699 203 $ 12,587 Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements,

and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 307,949 $ 45,674,444 307,737 $ 45,590,068 212 $ 84,376 Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 822,708 $ 112,237,909 821,002 $ 112,160,263 1,706 $ 77,646 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 719,059 $ 48,658,340 718,976 $ 48,653,467 84 $ 4,873 Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements,

and Special Waste Processes and Types 1572.06 669,476 $ 46,946,045 652,165 $ 45,975,716 17,311 $ 970,328 Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications,

and Special Permits 1573.10 12,209 $ 3,380,662 12,209 $ 3,380,662 0 $ 0 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 4,959 $ 355,066 4,959 $ 355,066 0 $ 0 Total 3,390,482 $ 328,724,973 3,336,380 $ 324,684,624 54,103 $ 4,040,349 a Exhibit contains rounding error.

b The hour and cost burden for this ICR includes the currently approved burden, in addition to the burden for generators to conduct tank system inspections under 40 CFR 265.193( f),

265.195, and 265.201( c). 4 4 ° The regulatory changes affecting the Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types ICR would result in an annual burden savings of 17,311 hours and $ 970,328. Most of the savings under this ICR ( i. e., 95% of the hour and cost savings under the ICR) arise from the elimination of semi annual reports of control device monitoring events under 40 CFR 264.1036 and 264.1065. EPA estimates that 1,420 sites prepare and submit these reports under the baseline. Under the final rule, these sites will no longer have to submit these reports, resulting in an annual savings of about 16,409 hours and $ 920,531.

° The regulatory changes affecting the Ground Water Monitoring ICR would result in an annual burden savings of 1,716 hours and $ 875,572. Most of the savings under this ICR arise from the modification to the requirements at 40 CFR 264.100( g) for reporting on the effectiveness of the corrective action program to the regulatory agency. The rule specifies that this documentation needs to be submitted annually, instead of semi annually. EPA estimates that 286 sites submit these reports under the baseline. Under the final rule, these sites will no longer have to submit these reports semi annually.

° The regulatory changes in the remaining ICRs provide minimal savings to the regulated community under the final rule: 2,205 hours and $ 179,482. Many of these changes affect paperwork activities that currently impose a small burden and/ or apply to a small population of waste handlers. In addition, a number of changes will not affect waste handler activities at all and therefore do not influence their burden ( e. g., clarifications or minor wording changes in the regulations).

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

C The nine ICRs are based on a relatively straightforward interpretation of the regulations and do not reflect all of the varied practices and approaches that industry takes in complying with the regulations.

C Although some of the ICRs are two or three years old, EPA did not attempt to update their waste handler universe estimates for this analysis.

C The final rule is less stringent than the current Federal program. Thus, States that are authorized for the requirements being amended are not required to adopt or receive authorization for the changes. This analysis assumes all States will adopt 4 5 the final rule. If fewer States adopt the final rule, the actual annual hour and cost savings will be lower than estimated in this analysis.

C This analysis assumes that all waste handlers will adopt the regulatory changes, except for the weekly tank inspections for which a bounding analysis was performed. However, EPA acknowledges that a percentage of waste handlers may continue to carry out particular recordkeeping requirements even if the corresponding requirement is eliminated ( i. e., for proof of compliance in an enforcement action).

C The analysis does not address certain minor burden impacts of the final rule, e. g., incremental costs to read and understand the new regulations ( i. e., learning curve). See Section 4.3 of this document for further discussion of these impacts.

4.3 Burden Impacts of the Final Rule Not Included in the Quantitative Analysis Following are the primary burden impacts of the final rule not included in the analysis of Section 4.1:

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

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

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

C Reduced Agency Burden. The final rule specifies that waste handlers need not submit certain documents to their regulatory agency ( i. e., EPA or an Authorized 4 6 State), but must keep the documents on site. Therefore, the final rule will reduce the number of documents that regulatory agencies have to review and process, and thus, may result in hour and cost savings to them. 5 1 5. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPLICATIONS This chapter discusses the environmental quality implications of the final rule. Section 5.1 analyzes the potential environmental quality implications of the major regulatory changes. Section 5.2 summarizes EPA's conclusions about the overall protectiveness of the rule.

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

C The amount of time records must be kept. EPA is establishing a five year retention period for incinerator and BIF records and a three year record retention period for certain operating record requirements under 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73. A brief discussion of the regulatory changes on record retention time is presented below.

Incinerator and BIF Records  EPA is decreasing the retention period for incinerator and BIF records ( e. g., monitoring and inspection data for incinerators at section 264.347( d)) to five years, bringing it in line with requirements being developed by EPA for incinerators and BIFs under the Clean Air Act. EPA believes that requiring these records to be kept until closure of the facility is unnecessarily burdensome. In addition, based on its experience under the RCRA program, EPA believes the five year record retention period is sufficient to enable regulators to effectively monitor industry compliance and take enforcement actions, as needed.

Operating Record Requirements under 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73  EPA is modifying a number of the operating record requirements under sections 264.73 and 265.73 to require only a three year limit on keeping information. Among other things, EPA is modifying the retention time limit for records and results of waste analyses and waste determinations; incident related information; certifications; and notifications. EPA believes that the changes establish a more reasonable record retention time for these provisions than the requirement to keep all information for the life of the facility. EPA believes the three year record retention period is sufficient to enable regulators to effectively monitor industry compliance and take enforcement actions, as needed.

In addition, EPA is increasing the record retention period for certain information kept onsite by interim status facilities under section 265.73. Specified groundwater data must now be kept until facility closure. 5 2 EPA notes that it is not modifying the time retention limit for records that contain the following information: ( i) description and quantity of each hazardous waste received and what was done with it, ( ii) location of each hazardous waste, ( iii) closure estimates, or ( iv) quantities of waste placed in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date of any land disposal restriction. EPA believes that this information is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment through the life of the facility, and after closure of the facility.

C Certification by an independent, qualified, professional engineer. EPA is revising the wording in the regulations in regard to professional engineers. Currently, the regulations specify that certain services ( e. g., assessments and certifications) must be performed by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer. However, EPA believes the words " registered" and " professional" mean the same thing in this regulatory context. Thus, the terms are redundant and the word " registered" has been deleted. EPA believes this change will improve the clarity of the regulations.

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

C Option to follow the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) regulations for emergency response. To ensure that all facilities are covered and that there are no gaps in the emergency response training requirements, EPA is providing flexibility by allowing facilities to determine whether to follow either the RCRA or OSHA requirements. For example, if a facility can meet all of the RCRA emergency response training requirements through an OSHA training course, EPA would consider that facility in compliance with the regulations. On the other hand, if a facility cannot meet the emergency response training requirements through an OSHA training course, then it would be incumbent upon that facility to address any gaps through the RCRA program. In addition, facilities not subject to OSHA training requirements, would have to comply with the RCRA training requirements. The Agency believes that this is a reasonable accommodation for all facilities. Therefore, the rule allows the 5 3 generator and the owner/ operator of a treatment, storage or disposal facility to comply with either the RCRA or OSHA emergency response training requirements depending upon their individual circumstances.

C Editorial changes in rule language. EPA is modifying specified regulatory language by eliminating obsolete terms and/ or rewording the language to make it clearer. EPA believes that these editorial changes will clarify the regulations, and thus, may increase regulatory compliance slightly.

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

C Decreased inspection frequency. EPA is revising the inspection requirements for containers, tanks, containment buildings, and areas subject to spills at member facilities of the National Performance Track Program. Under the existing ( i. e., pre rule) requirements, a facility must inspect its container storage areas at least weekly; tank systems daily; containment buildings every seven days; and areas subject to spills daily when in use. The final rule provides that member facilities may conduct inspections of these units up to monthly on a case by case basis.

To qualify for the National Performance Track Program, a facility must have an Environmental Management System ( EMS), a record of sustained compliance and achievement, a commitment to continual environmental improvement, and community outreach. A facility's EMS must, among other things, define procedures for achieving and maintaining regulatory compliance and meeting performance objectives and provide appropriate incentives for personnel to meet the EMS requirements. It also must provide training to personnel and carry out operation and maintenance programs for equipment and other operations related to legal compliance and other significant environmental aspects.

It is difficult to evaluate the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements. Each member facility has particular approaches for achieving regulatory compliance and continual improvement. Environmental implications would depend, at a minimum, on the protectiveness of a facility's existing procedures for its hazardous waste management units, as well as how these procedures might be affected under the monthly inspection requirements, if at all. This information was not available for this analysis. Therefore, this analysis does not examine the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements. 5 4 Exhibit 5 1 Evaluation of Environmental Implications of Weekly Tank Inspection Requirements at 40 CFR 264/ 5.195 for Large Quantity Generators and Permitted/ Interim Status Facilities and at 40 CFR 265.201 for Small Quantity Generators Description of Revised Requirements Examples of Possible Environmental Implications Comments on Possible Environmental Implications EPA reduced inspections of specified aspects of tank systems ( e. g.,

aboveground portions to detect releases) from each operating day to at least weekly, provided that specified requirements are met ° Decreased inspection frequency could reduce owner/ operator awareness of wear and tear on the tank system ( e. g., tank damage from severe weather). Note that wear and tear often occurs gradually ( e. g.,

over months or years); gradual wear and tear would not likely go undetected under weekly inspections ° Decreased inspections could reduce owner/ operator awareness of potential and actual releases from tanks ° Likelihood of environmental quality impacts appears to be greater for tanks such as the following:

 Older tank systems, especially if used often ( e. g., daily)

 Tank systems that are in poor condition, e. g., because of deferred maintenance/ repair  Tank systems that are in heavy use ° Likelihood of environmental quality impacts appears to be lower for tanks such as the following:

 Tank systems that are relatively new or otherwise in good condition ( e. g., systems whose integrity has recently been assessed and certified)

 Tank systems at which there is a daily presence by supervisors and employees in the normal operation of the tank, provided that they take steps to observe tank conditions and remedy problems  Tank systems that are infrequently used, or used in light service  Tank systems that are indoors 5 5 In addition, the final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators of tank systems may conduct weekly inspections of ( 1) the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste and ( 2) the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation).

Tank systems must meet either of two conditions in order to be inspected weekly: ( 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 workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated. Owners and operators choosing one of these options, to reduce inspection frequencies, must document the option selected in their operating record.

Exhibit 5 1 identifies and briefly examines some of the potential implications of the reduced tank inspection frequency. It indicates, for example, that decreased inspections could reduce owner/ operator awareness of potential release concerns. It also indicates that older tanks, tanks in poorer condition, and tanks in heavy use might be more likely to have environmental quality implications from reduced inspections.

EPA believes that adequate incentives and controls are in place such that the weekly inspection requirements are reasonably protective. First, EPA emphasizes that it is not changing the existing requirement that data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment ( e. g., pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) must be inspected at least once each operating day to ensure that the tank system is being operating according to its design. EPA feels that this requirement is necessary in order to ensure compliance with requirements for the detection of leaks and spills within 24 hours.

In addition, EPA expects tank facilities to act responsibly toward their property and equipment to prevent and detect releases, partly because of concerns about increasing insurance premiums and the cost of RCRA corrective action at permitting and closure. Because of them, EPA does not expect owner/ operators to reduce their inspections to weekly unless this would be protective, given the condition of the tank and other relevant factors.

EPA expects that most releases that do occur from primary tank systems will be captured by the secondary containment system. Tank systems must satisfy design 5 6 and operating requirements that minimize the threat of a release. In addition, tank systems must have secondary containment and leak detection system to adopt weekly inspections. So long as the secondary containment system is in adequate condition, releases to the environment should be infrequent. This is particularly true because the leak detection system will alert the owner/ operator of a release, in order for prompt removal.

In addition, EPA believes that a number of tank releases result from normal wear and tear on the tank system ( e. g., cracks in the secondary containment due to cycles in the weather, a tank whose structural integrity deteriorates over time). EPA believes that the modified inspection schedule is sufficient to detect these problems. As described above, if a release does occur from the primary tank system, EPA is confident that the daily inspection of monitoring data and the weekly inspection for corrosion and releases, secondary containment, automatic leak detection systems, and other controls will minimize the chance that it could migrate outside the tank system to the environment.

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

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

C Changes to the requirements for document submittal. EPA is modifying certain regulations that require waste handlers to submit documents, but do not require record retention. In the final rule, EPA specifies that waste handlers need not submit the information, but must keep it on site. Thus, facility compliance information will still be available to the Agency and to the public for compliance tracking.

C Reduced frequency for submittal of reports. Under the final rule, EPA requires annual submittal of certain documents, instead of semi annually ( e. g., corrective action reports submitted during closure of permitted facilities). EPA believes that annual reports will contain sufficient data to inform regulators of the facilities' regulatory compliance and waste related activities. Hence, an increased frequency 5 7 is not needed.

5.2 Summary of Environmental Quality Implications of the Regulatory Changes EPA has considered the environmental quality implications of the final rule and concluded that the regulatory changes will have minimal impact on the protectiveness of the RCRA regulations. The final rule clarifies certain requirements and eliminates or simplifies requirements. Paperwork requirements have been eliminated if they entail information that is obscure, inconsequential, or infrequently submitted to or used by regulators. Note, however, that the final rule does not curtail the right of regulatory agencies to request any information desired. Waste handlers must continue to keep on site records of their waste management activities and make them available to regulators when requested. As such, the rule does not limit regulators' or the public's ability to learn what is happening at a facility.

In addition, the final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators of tank systems may conduct weekly inspections of ( 1) the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste and ( 2) the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation).

Tank systems must meet either of two conditions in order to be inspected weekly: ( 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 workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated. Owners and operators choosing one of these options, to reduce inspection frequencies, must document the option selected in their operating record.

EPA believes that adequate incentives and controls are in place such that the weekly inspection requirements are reasonably protective. First, EPA emphasizes that it is not changing the existing requirement that data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment ( e. g., pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) must be inspected at least once each operating day to ensure that the tank system is being operating according to its design. EPA feels that this requirement is necessary in order to ensure compliance with requirements for the detection of leaks and spills within 24 hours.

In addition, EPA expects tank facilities to act responsibly toward their property and equipment to prevent and detect releases, partly because of concerns about increasing insurance premiums and the cost of RCRA corrective action at permitting and closure. Because of them, EPA does not expect owner/ operators to reduce their inspections to weekly unless this would be protective. 5 8 EPA expects that most releases that do occur from primary tank systems will be captured by the secondary containment system. Tank systems must satisfy design and operating requirements that minimize the threat of a release. In addition, tank systems must have secondary containment and leak detection system to adopt weekly inspections. So long as the secondary containment system is in adequate condition, releases to the environment should be infrequent. This is particularly true because the leak detection system will alert the owner/ operator of a release, in order for prompt removal.

EPA believes that a number of tank releases result from normal wear and tear on the tank system ( e. g., cracks in the secondary containment due to cycles in the weather, a tank whose structural integrity deteriorates over time). EPA believes that the modified inspection schedule is sufficient to detect these problems. As described above, if a release does occur from the primary tank system, EPA is confident that the daily inspection of monitoring data and the weekly inspection for corrosion and releases, as well as the requirements for secondary containment, automatic leak detection systems, and other controls will minimize the chance that it could migrate outside the tank system to the environment.

EPA has not examined the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements for National Performance Track Program facilities. Each member facility has particular approaches for achieving regulatory compliance and continual improvement. Environmental implications would depend, at a minimum, on the protectiveness of a facility's existing procedures for its hazardous waste management units, as well as how these procedures might be affected under the monthly inspection requirements, if at all. This information was not available for this analysis. Therefore, this analysis does not examine the environmental implications of the monthly inspection requirements. 6 1 6. OTHER POLICY ISSUES This chapter describes EPA's analysis and determinations under Federal statutory requirements and Executive Orders applicable to Federal rules. These include:

C Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; ° Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice; ° Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; ° National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act; ° Regulatory Flexibility Act; ° Executive Order 13132: Federalism; ° Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; ° Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; ° Paperwork Reduction Act; and ° Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

6.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires EPA to determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. As defined in Executive Order 12866, a " significant regulatory action" is any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Because this rule clarifies inconsistencies in the regulations and decreases burden, it does not meet the criteria set out above. It, therefore, is not considered a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866. 6 2 6.2 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice Under Executive Order 12898, as well as through EPA's April 1995 " Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agency Report" and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the U. S. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities.

EPA has considered the impacts of the final rule on low income populations and minority populations and concluded that there are no disproportionately high impacts under the rule. The basic reason for this finding is that the rule modifies or eliminates paperwork requirements that were deemed unnecessary or infrequently used by regulators. However, the rule preserves the technical requirements underlying these paperwork requirements. In addition, regulators continue to have access to all facility paperwork held on site, should the need arise.

In addition, the final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators may conduct weekly inspections of the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste; and the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation). To be eligible for the weekly inspections, tank owners and operators must employ leak detection equipment used in conjunction with secondary containment; or in the absence of leak detection equipment, tank owners and operators must employ workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated.

EPA believes that adequate incentives and controls are in place such that the weekly inspection requirements are reasonably protective. First, EPA emphasizes that it is not changing the existing requirement that data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment ( e. g., pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) must be inspected at least once each operating day to ensure that the tank system is being operating according to its design. In addition, EPA expects tank facilities to act responsibly toward their property and equipment to prevent and detect releases, partly because of concerns about increasing insurance premiums and the cost of RCRA corrective action at permitting and closure. Finally, EPA expects that most releases that do occur from primary tank systems will be captured by the secondary containment system. Tank systems must satisfy design and operating requirements ( e. g., secondary containment and leak detection systems) that minimize the threat of a release to the environment. 6 3 6.3 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that may: ( 1) be " economically significant" under Executive Order 12866 ( i. e., a rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities), and ( 2) concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA has determined that the final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an " economically significant" rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. EPA also expects the rule does not expect the rule to have a disproportionate effect on children's health. The basic reason for this finding is that the rule modifies or eliminates paperwork requirements that were deemed unnecessary or infrequently used by regulators. However, the rule preserves the technical requirements underlying these paperwork requirements. In addition, regulators continue to have access to all facility paperwork held on site, should the need arise.

In addition, the final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators may conduct weekly inspections of the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste; and the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation). To be eligible for the weekly inspections, tank owners and operators must employ leak detection equipment used in conjunction with secondary containment; or in the absence of leak detection equipment, tank owners and operators must employ workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated.

EPA believes that adequate incentives and controls are in place such that the weekly inspection requirements are reasonably protective. First, EPA emphasizes that it is not changing the existing requirement that data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment ( e. g., pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) must be inspected at least once each operating day to ensure that the tank system is being operating according to its design. In addition, EPA expects tank facilities to act responsibly toward their property and equipment to prevent and detect releases, partly because of concerns about increasing insurance premiums and the cost of RCRA corrective action at permitting and closure. Finally, EPA expects that most releases that do occur from primary tank systems will be captured by the secondary containment system. Tank systems must satisfy design and operating requirements ( e. g., secondary containment and leak 6 4 detection systems) that minimize the threat of a release to the environment.

6.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA also directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The final rule does not involve technical standards based on new methodologies. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

6.5 Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), requires EPA to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small governments, and small non profit organizations). However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA further requires EPA to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule on small entities, a " small entity" is defined as: ( 1) a small business; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

EPA has examined the final rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule is specifically intended to be deregulatory and to reduce, not increase, the paperwork and related burdens of the RCRA hazardous waste program. For businesses in general, including all small businesses, the regulatory changes will reduce the labor time and other costs of preparing, keeping records of, and submitting reports to the Agency. The final rule, for example, reduces the frequency by which businesses must conduct specified recordkeeping and reporting activities ( e. g., decreased inspection frequency for hazardous waste tanks from daily to weekly). It also eliminates certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements altogether, i. e., in cases where the documents are little 6 5 used by the public or regulators. In addition, the rule eliminates redundancies between the RCRA regulations and other regulatory programs ( e. g., RCRA and OSHA requirements for personnel training), thereby streamlining facilities' compliance activities. Finally, the rule provides increased flexibility in how waste handlers may comply with the regulations ( e. g., establishment of decreased inspection frequencies for facilities in the National Performance Track Program).

Based on the above, EPA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications." As defined in Executive Order 13132, " policies that have Federalism implications" include regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

6.7 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure by State, 6 6 local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed, under Section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments; enabling officials of affected small governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates; and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in any one year. In addition, the rule contains no regulatory requirements for small governments. Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA.

6.8 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications." As defined in Executive Order 13175, " policies that have Tribal implications" include regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

The final rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. As explained above, the final rule eliminates or relaxes many of the paperwork requirements in the regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

6.9 Paperwork Reduction Act 6 7 EPA has prepared a document listing the information collection requirements of the final rule, and has submitted this document to OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.

EPA estimates that the reporting and recordkeeping hour burden reduction for this rule ranges from 38,838 hours to 54,103 hours. EPA also estimates that the reporting and recordkeeping cost burden reduction for this rule ranges from approximately $ 3.10 million to $ 4.04 million. " Burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

6.10 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to OMB for those matters identified as significant energy actions. As defined in Executive Order 13211, a " significant energy action" is any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking that: ( 1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) is designated by OMB as a significant energy action.

The final rule does not involve the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to this rule. 7 1 7. REFERENCES EPA conducted literature searches and spoke with industry representatives in preparing this document. These references are identified below.

Documents Used 96th Congress of the United States of America; Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96 354; September 19, 1980.

104th Congress of the United States of America; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104  4; March 22, 1995.

104th Congress of the United States of America; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104  13; May 22, 1995.

104th Congress of the United States of America; National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104 113; March 7, 1996.

104th Congress of the United States of America; The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104 121; March 29, 1996.

Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget; " Table 10.1   Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables 1940  2009," Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, Historical Tables; March 29, 2004. Available: http:// www. gpoaccess. gov/ usbudget/ fy05/ hist. html.

The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: Regulatory Planning and Review; 58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993.

The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low income Populations; 59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994.

The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 13045 of April 21, 1997: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; 62 FR 19883; April 23, 1997.

The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999: Federalism; 64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999. 7 2 The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments; 65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000.

The President of the United States of America; Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use; 66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; Employment Cost Index Historical Listing ( June 1989 = 100); April 29, 2005. Available at: http:// www. bls. gov/ web/ echistry. pdf.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information; ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995  Draft; June 2001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request # 1775.03, " Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media);" January 30, 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request # 1361.09, " Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements;" July 31, 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request # 1571.07, " General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards;" October 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1573.10, " Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits;" February 2003.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1442.18, " Land Disposal Restrictions;" January 16, 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1572.06, " Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Process and Types;" March 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 1189.14, " Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions;" September 13, 2004. 7 3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 820.09, " Hazardous Waste Generator Standards;" October 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste; Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 959.12, " Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements;" January 17, 2005.

Industry Representatives Contacted In September of 2004, EPA spoke with industry about the number of tank systems in the United States. Their feedback was considered in developing the assumptions in this document. Industry representatives contacted include the following:

° Erik Talley, Chair of the American Chemical Society.

° Mr. Ken Shoemake of Perma Fix Environmental Services.

° Ms. Chris Hammonds of C MAC Environmental Group.

° Ms. Tita LaGrimas of Pollution Control Industries.

° Mr. John Stiller of Northland Environmental.

° Mr. Mike Karp of ENSCO.

EPA Regions and State Contacted In March of 2005, EPA conducted limited consultations with the EPA Regions and a State in order to gather information on tank automatic leak detection systems and industry adoption of the weekly inspection requirement. Their feedback was considered in developing this document. The following individuals were contacted:

° EPA Region I  Steve Yee  Rich Pilitan ° EPA Region II  John Wilk ° EPA Region III  Paul Gotthold 7 4 ° EPA Region IV  Denise Housley  Larry Lambert ° EPA Region VIII  Mike Gansecki  Randy Lamdin  Tom Burns ° EPA Region IX  Mary Blevins ° State of Colorado  Joe Scheflin APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS COVERED IN AFFECTED ICRs A 1 Exhibit A 1 Summary of Regulatory Requirements Covered in Affected ICRs ICR Name ICR Number Regulatory Requirements Covered in the ICR Hazardous Waste Generator Standards 820.09 Standards applicable to LQGs and SQGs. Specifically, hazardous waste determination requirements,

pre transport requirements, air emission standards ( LQGs only), recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and export requirements. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR Part 262.

Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 Groundwater monitoring standards for interim status facilities and for permitted facilities. Both sets of standards establish programs for protecting groundwater from releases of hazardous wastes from land disposal facilities ( i. e., facilities with surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units,

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

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

Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 Standards and procedures for rulemaking petitions, solid waste and boiler variances, hazardous waste exclusions, and hazardous waste listing exemptions. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261.

Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements,

and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 Standards applicable to boilers and industrial furnaces ( BIFs) burning hazardous wastes.

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

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

Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 Prohibitions, minimum treatment standards, and procedures applicable to generators and managers of hazardous wastes restricted from land disposal, including waste analysis and recordkeeping,

notifications/ certifications, demonstration for alternative treatment technology, demonstration for variance from a treatment standard, recordkeeping for storage prohibition. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR Part 268. ICR Name ICR Number Regulatory Requirements Covered in the ICR A 2 General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 General facility standards and procedures applicable to TSDFs, including, among other things,

development of contingency plans; training of personnel; and financial responsibility. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 ( e. g,

Subparts B, D, E, and H).

Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements,

and Special Waste Process and Types 1572.06 Standards and procedures applicable to owners and operators of permitted and interim status TSDFs that use at least one of the following units to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes: container;

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

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

Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications,

and Special Permits 1573.10 Performance standards and permitting requirements applicable to hazardous waste TSDFs,

including: demonstrations and exemptions from requirements, contents of the Part B application,

permit modifications, and special permits. The regulations implementing the permitting requirements are codified at 40 CFR Part 270.

Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 Performance standards and permitting requirements applicable to remediation waste management sites. In addition, standards and procedures applicable to owners and operators of staging piles. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified at 40 CFR 264.1( j), 264.554, and Part 270,

Subpart H. APPENDIX B MODIFICATIONS TO THE BASELINE BURDEN ESTIMATED UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR STANDARDS ICR B 1 Modifications to the Baseline Burden Estimated Under the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR The final rule changes the self inspection frequencies for tank systems from daily to weekly under certain conditions. Specifically, owner/ operators of tank systems may conduct weekly inspections of ( 1) the above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste and ( 2) the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation).

Tank systems must meet either of two conditions in order to be inspected weekly: ( 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 workplace practices that ensure that when any leaks or spills occur; they will be promptly identified, and that they will be promptly remediated. Owners and operators choosing one of these options, to reduce inspection frequencies, must document the option selected in their operating record.

Hazardous waste generators ( i. e., LQGs and SQGs) that operate tank systems will be able to reduce their tank inspections as specified in the rule. Their burden impacts under the rule must therefore be included in this analysis. To do so, EPA ascertained their burden under the existing ( i. e., baseline) requirements for daily inspections, as well as the final requirements for weekly inspections. ( Refer to Appendix D for EPA's burden assumptions under the final inspection requirements.)

For purposes of ascertaining generator burden under the existing inspection requirements, EPA first consulted the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR. The ICR estimates the hour and cost burden to hazardous waste generators under information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Agency found, however, that the ICR does not address the generator inspections because they do not involve the collection of information as defined by the PRA.

Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, EPA estimated the hour and cost burden to generators under the existing inspection requirements and then incorporated these estimates into the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR, in order to estimate a comprehensive annual generator burden under the baseline.

EPA estimated this baseline burden based on the following assumptions.

Large Quantity Generators ° An LQG spends, on average, 15 minutes each operating day in inspecting its tank systems. 7 EPA estimated an average hourly labor rate of $ 61.43 for the inspections. This rate was applied to the annual hourly burden to derive total annual costs.

8 Ibid.

B 2 ° LQG tanks are in operation 274 days of the year, on average ( i. e., 75% of the year). ° As a result of the above assumptions, EPA estimates that an LQG spends, on average, 68.50 hours per year inspecting its tanks. ° 10% of LQGs own/ operate tanks ( i. e., 17,016 LQGs x 10% = 1,702 LQGs with tank systems). ° Hence, total annual LQG inspection burden under the baseline = 116,587 hours and $ 7,161,939. 7 Small Quantity Generators ° An SQG spends, on average, 10 minutes each operating day in inspecting its tank systems. ° SQG tanks are in operation 183 days of the year, on average ( i. e., 50% of the year). ° As a result of the above assumptions, EPA estimates that an SQG spends, on average, 30.50 hours per year inspecting its tanks. ° 5% of SQGs own/ operate tanks ( i. e., 107,366 SQGs x 5% = 5,368 SQGs with tank systems). ° Hence, total annual SQG inspection burden under the baseline = 163,724 hours and $ 10,057,565.8 The currently approved Hazardous Waste Generator Standards ICR estimates an annual burden of 455,387 hours and $ 28,073,876. To this, EPA added the 280,311 hours and $ 17,219,504 for the generator inspections estimate above. This resulted in a total annual generator burden estimate of 735,698 hours and $ 45,293,380 under the baseline. Refer to Exhibit 2 1 of this document, where this burden is presented. APPENDIX C CROSSWALK OF REGULATORY CHANGES TO THE ICRs AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE C 1 Exhibit C 1 Crosswalk of Regulatory Changes to the ICRs Affected by the Final Rule ICR Name ICR Number Regulatory Changes Amount of Time Records Must Be Kept Certification by an Independent,

Qualified,

Professional Engineer Option to Follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance Option to Follow the OSHA Regulations for Emergency Response Clarifications and Elimination of Obsolete Regulatory Language Elimination of Selected Recordkeeping and Reporting Decreased Inspection Frequency for Hazardous Waste Management Units Selected Changes to the Requirements for Record Retention and Submittal of Records Changes to the Requirements for Document Submittal Reduced Frequency for Report Submittals Hazardous Waste Generator Standards 820.09 U U U U U U U Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 959.12 U U U Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions 1189.14 U U U Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements 1361.09 U U U U U U Land Disposal Restrictions 1442.18 U U General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards 1571.07 U U U U U U U Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Process and Types 1572.06 U U U U U U Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits 1573.10 U U U U Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements ( HWIR Media) 1775.03 U APPENDIX D REGULATORY CHANGES TO RCRA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS AND EPA'S ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING REVISED WASTE HANDLER HOUR AND COST BURDEN D 1 Regulatory Changes to RCRA Information Collection Requirements and EPA's Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Waste Handler Hour and Cost Burden Exhibit D 1 identifies the existing ( i. e., pre rule) information collection requirements that are affected by the final rule as well as the ICRs under which the requirements are currently analyzed. For each requirement, the exhibit summarizes the assumptions used to revise the ICR's analytical assumptions as well as the resulting hour and cost estimates under the final rule. Refer to Exhibit 3 1 of this document and the final rule for additional information on how the pre rule requirements were amended. D 2 Exhibit D 1 Regulatory Changes to RCRA Information Collection Requirements and EPA's Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Waste Handler Hour and Cost Burden Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Regulatory Citation Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Hour and Cost Burden Revised Estimates a Number of Respondents Hourly Burden Cost Burden EPA ICR Number 820.09  Hazardous Waste Generator Standards Personnel Training Requirements  Establish training program for emergency response 265.16( a)( 3) The ICR does not cover this requirement because it is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and ICR requirements. In any case, minimal burden impact is expected from this change. Therefore,

the ICR was not modified to reflect the rule change. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Contingency Plans

Coordination with other plans 265.52( b) Burden hours not reduced because the One Plan guidance will not notably affect the burden for writing the contingency plan. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Emergency Procedures

Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with section 265.56( h) { which requires that no waste that may be incompatible with the released material will be treated/ stored/ disposed until cleanup is completed,

and emergency equipment is made ready for use again} before resuming operations 265.56( i) Eliminated this requirement. 0 0 $ 0 Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity 265.191( a),

( b)( 5)( ii) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  Assessment of structural integrity and acceptability for storing and treating waste 265.192( a) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Regulatory Citation Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Hour and Cost Burden Revised Estimates a Number of Respondents Hourly Burden Cost Burden D 3 Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  Assessment of tank installation 265.192( b) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Containment and Detection of Releases from Tank Systems  Secondary containment of tank systems 265.193( a) There is no effect on the ICR. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Containment and Detection of Releases from Tank Systems  Assessment of the overall condition of the tank system 265.193( h)( 5)( i)

( 2) This ICR examines the burden associated with the requirements under section 265.193( h)( 5)( i)( 2)

along with the requirements under section 265.193( i).

Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Regulatory Citation Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Hour and Cost Burden Revised Estimates a Number of Respondents Hourly Burden Cost Burden D 4 Inspection of Tank Systems ( LQGs) 265.195 This ICR has been revised to reflect burden under the existing ( i. e., baseline) requirements for daily inspections, as well as the reduced burden for the weekly inspections as specified in the rule.

EPA recognizes the uncertainty of estimating facility adoption of the reduced inspection frequency,

given a lack of data on the number of tank facilities with automatic leak detection systems. These systems are required for facilities to adopt weekly inspections.

To address its uncertainty, EPA performed limited consultations with the Regions and State. It used their feedback as well as its best judgment to perform a bounding analysis to estimate impacts under a low and high adoption rate scenario. From its consultations, EPA found that automatic leak detection systems are not widely used; rather, the majority of facilities use other methods that might not qualify under the rule. In addition, EPA believes that some facilities will continue to conduct daily inspections under the rule, regardless of their automatic leak detection systems, because of standard tank operating procedures and/ or a desire to be proactive toward the environment. Hence,

EPA has estimated 25% adoption as a lower bound ( i. e., 25% of tank facilities will adopt the reduced inspections) and 50% as an upper bound.

For tank facilities expected to adopt the weekly inspections, the ICR was revised such that hourly burden was reduced from 68.5 hours/ facility/ year ( i. e., 15 minutes/ facility/ day) under the baseline to 32.58 hours/ facility/ year under the rule. The 32.58 annual hour estimate was calculated by assuming 19.58 hours/ facility/ year to inspect tank monitoring and leak detection equipment each operating day ( 5 minutes/ facility/ day) and 13 hours/ facility/ year to conduct weekly inspections of the tank's aboveground portions and areas immediately surrounding the tank ( 20 minutes/ facility/ week).

The 32.58 hour per facility annual burden was applied to 25% of facilities under the lower bound scenario and 50% under the upper bound scenario. Tank facilities not adopting the reduced inspections were kept at 68.5 hours per year. The revised burden estimates are shown in this exhibit for the low and high scenarios. It was assumed that tanks are in operation 274 days of the year ( i. e.,

75% of the year), on average. The ICR estimates that there are 1,702 LQG tank facilities in the U. S.

In regard to National Performance Track Program, this analysis assumes that no facilities in the program will apply to reduce their inspection frequency. Low: 1,702 High:

1,702 Low: 86,020 High: 101,285 Low:

$ 5,284,208 High:

$ 6,221,938 Response to Leaks or Spills and Disposition of Leaking or Unfit for Use Tank Systems

Certification of major repairs 265.196( f) Hourly burden not reduced because recordkeeping will replace reporting. Recordkeeping will be conducted under new section 265.73( b)( 15). O& M costs under 265.196( f) decrease by $ 3.95 ( i. e.,

mailing costs).

In regard to the certification by an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer, the rule merely deletes the word " registered." Therefore, no burden reduction was estimated for this change. 43 351 $ 16,158 Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Regulatory Citation Assumptions Used in Estimating Revised Hour and Cost Burden Revised Estimates a Number of Respondents Hourly Burden Cost Burden D 5 Small Quantity Generator Tanks 265.201( c)( 1),

( c)( 2), ( c)( 3) EPA assumes that no SQGs will adopt the weekly inspections as specified in the rule. EPA believes that the majority of SQGs do not have secondary containment, automatic leak detection systems, or workplace practices to detect releases, which are required in order to adopt weekly inspections.

In regard to National Performance Track Program, this analysis assumes that no facilities in the program will apply to reduce their inspection frequency. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Assessment of Existing Drip Pad Integrity 265.441( a), ( b),

( c) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Design and Operating Requirements of Drip Pads  Certification of drip pad 265.443( a)( 4)( ii)

, ( g) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Inspection of Drip Pads

Certification of drip pad 265.444( a) Burden not affected. The rule merely deletes the word " registered" from the term " registered professional engineer." Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Alternative Standards for Valves in Gas/ Vapor Service or in Light Liquid Service: Percentage of Valves Allowed to Leak

Alternative standard notification 265.1061( b)( 1) Eliminated this requirement. 0 0 $ 0 Alternative Standards for Valves in Gas/ Vapor Service or in Light Liquid Service: Percentage of Valves Allowed to Leak

Work practice standard notification 265.1061( d) Eliminated this requirement. 0 0 $ 0 Alternative Standards for Valves in Gas/ Vapor Service or in Light Liquid Service: Skip Period Leak Detection and Repair

Alternative work practice notification 265.1062( a)( 2) Eliminated this requirement. 0 0 $ 0 Containment Buildings:

Applicability  Notification 265.1100 There is no effect on the ICR. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)

Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement Description Existing ( i. e., Pre Rule)