### SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST #1608.06

STATE PROGRAM ADEQUACY DETERMINATION:

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (MSWLFs)

and NON-MUNICIPAL, NON-HAZARDOUS

WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RE CEIVE CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR (CESQG) HAZARDOUS WASTE (RENEWAL)

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION (a) Title and number of t he information co llection ................................................ 3 (b) Short Char acterization ................ .................................................................. 3

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION (a) Need and authority for t he information co llection ........................................... 4 (b) Practical utilit y/users of the data ..................................................................... 5

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA (a) Nonduplication..................................................................................5 (b) Public Notice.....................................................................................5 (c) Consultations .. .................................................................................6 (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection .....................................................6 (e) General Guidelines.............................................................................6 (f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ..................................................6

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED (a) Respondents/ SIC Codes ............. .................................................................. 7 (b) Informati on Reques ted ................ .................................................................. 7

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (a) Agency Ac tivities ......................... .................................................................. 8 (b) Collection Methodol ogy and Managem ent .................................................... .9 (c) Small Entity Flexibility .................. .................................................................. 9 (d) Collecti on Schedule .................... ................................................................ 10

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION (a) Estimating Respondent Burden

... ................................................................ 11 (b) Estimating Respondent Costs ..... ................................................................ 11 (c) Estimating Agency Burden and Co st ............................................................ 11 (d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Co sts .......................................................... 12 (e) Respondent Universe and Total Bur den ...................................................... 12 (f) Reasons For Change in Burden ... ................................................................ 13 (g) Burden St atement ........................ ................................................................ 13

Exhibits 1 - 5 ..........................................................................................14-213 

### 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

This Information Collection Request (I CR) is entitled “State Program Adequacy Determination: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) and Non-Municipal, NonHazardous Waste Disposal Units that Rece ive Conditionally Ex empt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste (Renew al),” ICR number 1608 .06, OMB number

2050-0152.

1(b) Short Characterization

Section 4010(c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 requires that the Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) revise the landfill criteria promulgated under paragraph (1) of Section 4004(a) and Secti on 1008(a)(3). Section 4005(c) of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous Solid Wa ste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires states to dev elop and implement permit pr ograms to ensure that nonmunicipal, non-hazardous wast e disposal units that rece ive household hazardous waste

or CESQG hazardous waste and m unicipal solid waste landfills are in compliance with

the revised criteria for t he design and operation of non-muni cipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units under 40 CFR part 257, subpar t B and MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. (40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258 are henceforth referred to as the “revised federal criteria”). Section 4005(c) of RCRA further mandates the EPA Administrator to determine the adequacy of state permit programs to ensure owner/operator compliance with the revised feder al criteria. A state program that is deemed adequate to ensure compliance may afford flexibility to ow ners/operators in the approaches they use to meet federal require ments, significantly reducing the burden associated with comp liance.

In response to the statutory require ment in §4005(c), EPA developed 40 CFR part 239, commonly referred to as the Stat e Implementation Rule (SIR). The SIR describes the state applicati on and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of an adequate state permit program.

The collection of information from t he state during the permit program adequacy determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program fo r which approval is requested is appropriate in st ructure and authority to ensure owner/operator compliance with the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/or the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. The SIR does not require the use of a particular applic ation form. However, §239.3 of the SIR requires that all state applications contain the following five components:

(1) A transmittal letter reques ting permit program approval;

(2) A narrative description of the state permit program, in cluding a demonstration that the state’s non-municipal, non- hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG4 

### hazardous standards are technically comparabl e to the part 257, subpart B criteria

and/or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the part 258 criteria;

(3) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the author ity to carry out the

program;

(4) Copies of relevant state laws, r egulations, and guidance that the state believes demonstrate progr am adequacy; and

(5) Copies of relevant state-tribal agreem ents if the state has nego tiated with a tribe for the implementation of a permit program for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazar dous waste and/or muni cipal solid waste

landfills on Indian Lands.

A more detailed description of the dat a elements, respondent activities, and Record keeping requirements associated with each of the information collection requirements is presented in Section 3.

The attached supporting statement provides justification for the information collection requirements included in 40 CFR part 239. It examines the burden to states associated with preparing and su bmitting a program applicatio n that complies with SIR requirements. This ICR also estimates the co st that the federal gov ernment will incur in reviewing state program applications and determining the adequacy of state permit

programs.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Information Collection

Section 4010(c) of RCRA requires EPA to establish minimum criteria to ensure that non-municipal, non-haz ardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG

hazardous waste and MSWLFs are desi gned and managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the envir onment. 40 CFR part 257, subpart B

establishes these minimum federal criter ia for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG haz ardous waste and 40 CFR part 258 establishes

them for MSWLFs. The statut e also requires states to adopt permit programs to ensure that owners and operators of both types of waste disposal unit s comply with the relevant

federal criteria.

The need for this collection of information from the states der ives from Section 4005(c) of RCRA which requires the EPA Administrator to revi ew state permit programs to determine if they are adequate to ensure compliance with the federal criteria. The SIR (40 CFR part 239) establishes the proce dures EPA has developed to carry out this mandate. To make the required determinat ion, EPA must collect information from5 

### states. That information is provided to the Agency in the context of an application for permit program approval.

States which do not submit the informati on necessary to make a determination of program adequacy will be deemed to have i nadequate programs. Where the state program is deemed in adequate, owners and operators of both non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units and MSWLFs must comply with the self-implementing provisions of the federal re vised criteria in 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258, and may not be able to take advantage of the flexibility that may be afforded to owners/operators by states with approv ed permit programs.

EPA has granted full approval to 50 states and territories for their MSWLF programs under 40 CFR 258. In addition, EPA has determined that 45 states have adequate provisions in place to require t hat CESQG waste is disposed in suitable

facilities.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of adequacy, as contained in the st atute, to the EPA Regional Ad ministrators. Therefore, the appropriate EPA Regional Office uses t he information provided by each state to determine whether the state’s permit program sati sfies the statutory te st reflected in the requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In all cases, the information is analyzed to determine the adequacy of the state’s pe rmit program for ensuring compliance with the federal

revised criteria.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION S, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

The information collection covered in this ICR is not available from sources other than the respondents. There is no other fe deral agency that collects information on the adequacy of state non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive

CESQG hazardous waste and/or of MSWLF permit programs. Therefore, this information collection does not represent a duplicative effort by any other source.

3(b) Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a public notice in the Federal Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58496) and provided a 60 day comment period for this ICR. No comments were received.6 

### 3(c) Consultations

EPA made substantial efforts to cons ult with state officials during the development of the State Im plementation Rule. During this time EPA met with the following people: Tom Kennedy and Kerry Call ahan, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSW MO); Richard Barlow, Connecticut; James Dunbar, Georgia; Thomas Epstein, Rhode Island; Bill Cass and Carol Ansheles, Northeast Waste Management Officials Asso ciation (NEWMOA); Hector Mendietta,

Texas; Jim Warner, Minnesota; Neil Weber, New Mexico; Mark Witherspoon, Arkansas; and other state personnel. EPA, through ASTSWM O, provided copies of drafts for the State Implementation Rule, at various stages in its development, to provide all states and territories an opportunity for input on the procedures used to assess the adequacy of affected state permitting programs.

3(d) Effects of L ess Frequent Collection

EPA has encouraged states to work with re gional EPA staff, and to submit early

drafts to ensure that their applications are complete, with sufficient detail to lessen the potential need for revision. It is antici pated that, due to the extensive interaction between states and the regional EPA staff in the development of both the permit programs and the applications for adequacy determinations, st ates will not be required to submit revised applications.

Additional review and revision of st ate programs may be needed when federal or

state statutory or regulatory authorities ar e subsequently altered or when the state shifts permit program responsibilit y from one agency to another. The Regional Administrator will determine, on a case-by-case basis, w hether subsequent statutory or regulatory changes warrant revision of the state program or modificati ons to a state’s original program approval application. Procedures for this process are detailed in 40 CFR part 239.12 and are designed to minimize state burdens.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended in 1995, OMB’s implementing regul ations, OMB’s Information Collection

Review Handbook , and other applicable OMB guidance.

3(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

The information that states would submit is public information; therefore, no problems of confidentiality or sensitive questions arise.7 

### 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/NAICS or SIC Codes

The universe of respondents involved in this information collection will be limited to states that seek approval of their permit programs or modi fications to their previously approved permit programs for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that

receive CESQG waste and/or for MSWLFs. Th is information collection effort includes approved states that revise their criteria for MSWLFs to allow states to issue Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) pe rmits for new and existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions. No entities with NAICS or SIC c odes will be affected by this

information collection.

4(b) Information Requested

Develop Program Application

States requesting program approval must submit a program application as

described in the SIR. Prior to the final subm ission, EPA encourages the states to submit draft applications for Agency comment and sugges tions. The costs of draft application submission are incorporated into the costs of final application submission.

(i) Data Items, Including Re cord keeping Requirements

EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants associated with this rule. The primary data item for the adequacy determinat ion process is the state program application. Data items include:

• Narrative description of the state program(s)

• Transmittal letter

• Legal certification

• Copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance

• Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements

(ii) Respondent Activities

• Read the SIR and 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/or 40 CFR part 258

• Prepare the narrative program description

• Write the transmittal letter8 

### • Prepare the legal certification

• Compile relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance

• Compile relevant agreement s between state and tribe(s)

Adequacy Determination Process

The state will submit a forma l application containing a ll required elements, to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. After the formal application has been reviewed by the EPA Region, the Agency may request revisions or additional information from the state, particularly in response to comments receiv ed during the public comment period that the Agency is required to provide. The state will meet with the EPA Region to discuss such changes and may need to modify and resubmit the application.

(i) Data Items, including Re cord keeping Requirements

Under this rule, EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants. The primary data item for the adequacy determinat ion process is the state program application.

(ii) Respondent Activities

• Submit an application fo r state program approval

• Modify the application, if necessa ry, to respond to comments from the EPA Region and/or the public

• Resubmit the application, if necessary

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

Develop Program Application

As the states develop and complete thei r program applications, the appropriate EPA Regions will review them and provide written comments to the state. As part of this process, a Region may conduct meetings with state representatives.

Adequacy Determination Process9 

### After a Region determines that a state application is complete, the Region will review it and make a final adequacy determinati on. The Region will make every attempt to complete its review and make a final determination of adequacy within 180 days of receipt of a complete application; however , submission of an application for program approval does not ensure automatic approval should EPA fail to meet the 180 day time frame. During the review process, the Region will be responsible for the following

activities:

• Review the application for completeness and request additional information if necessary;

• Review the completed application, draft and forward comments to, and

meet with state as needed;

• After consultation with Regional staff, the Regional Administrator will make

a tentative determination;

• Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of tentative determination;

• Hold public hearing(s), if necessary;

• Respond to public comments if si gnificant comments are received;

• After meetings between the Regio nal and state staff to resolve any remaining issues, the Regional Administrator will make a final

determination; and

• Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of final determination.

5(b) Collection Meth odology and Management

EPA does not prescribe through regulation the manner in which the application is to be submitted: Respondents have flexib ility regarding the m anner in which they submit information (i.e., hardcopy or electronically word pr ocessed); however, database submission is not practicable. Regions will be required to maintain a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for public review and a docket for the final ru le. These records may be kept at a public library, where they will require minima l space and upkeep.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The rule requires states to submit app lications for permit program approval for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/or for municipal solid waste landfills. It does not impact the flexibility of small

entities.10 

### 5(d) Collection Schedule

The 40 CFR part 258 criteria were pr omulgated on October 9, 1991 and were generally effective beginning on October 9, 1993. Criteria for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that re ceive CESQG hazardous waste (40 CFR part 257, subpart B) were promulgated on July 1, 1996. Location and record keeping criteria were effective on January 1, 1998 and groundwat er monitoring and corrective action requirements became effective on July 1, 1998. Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for MSWLFs (40 CF R part 285.4, subpart A) became effective on April 21, 2004. Requirements for States and Territiories to submit applications for determination of adequacy of their Subtitle D solid waste programs and procedures for EPA determination of adequacy are contained in 40 CFR 239. EPA has determined that 30 states have existing permit programs for CESQG hazardous waste disposal that are adequate to meet t he 40 CFR part 257, subpar t B requirements.

States have been encouraged to apply for and gain program approval as quickly as possible, to allow the state and facility owner s/operators to fully utiliz e the flexibility in the part 257, subpart B and par t 258 criteria. Schedules submitted in lieu of an application were expected to outline how the state would make progress toward completing its application. St ates failing to submit an app lication within the scheduled

time frame could be deemed “inadequate.”

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The following burden and cost estimates are based upon EPA’s experience in processing state MSWLF permit program adequa cy determinations. The estimates also reflect the Agency’s burden and costs from reviewing similar activities of other regulatory programs, and from discussions with states.

Under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, ow ners/operators of non-municipal, nonhazardous disposal units t hat receive CESQG hazardous waste must comply with location restrictions, ground-water monito ring, and corrective action standards. EPA

has determined that 45 states have exis ting permit programs for CESQG hazardous waste disposal that are adequate to meet th e 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements. Over the next three years, EPA expects up to 5 additional states/territories to seek permit program adequacy determinations fo r non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receiv e CESQG hazardous waste. T he burden and cost estimates for the permit program adequacy determinati ons for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste will be higher than for the streamlined approval process used for the 45 states already approved, but less than for the MSWLF permit program adequacy determi nations because the requirements for non-municipal, non-hazardous disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are less cumbersome than those required for MSWLFs.11 

### To date, EPA has fully or partially appr oved 54 state/territorial MSWLF permit programs. Over t he next three years, EPA expect s to receive permit program applications from the remaining 2 states/territories and expects up to 5 states/territories to modify previously approved programs. EPA expects 9 approved states over the next three years to seek RD&D approval for MSWLFs.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA estimates respondent burden hours associ ated with all of the requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibits 1-5. Separate scenarios were developed for MSWLF and non-municipal, non-hazardous waste permit program approval applications. Each is presented in a chart at the end of this statement which shows the estimated burden hours and costs for each collection activity.

• Exhibit 1 assumes that 5 states/t erritories will submit permit program approval applications for non-munici pal, non-hazardous waste disposal

units that receive CESQG hazardous waste.

• Exhibit 2 assumes that 2 states/territories will submit an application for MSWLF permit program approval (Exhibit 2a) and that 5 states will modify their existing approved programs (Exhibit 2b).

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were from 2008. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2011 GS salary table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

For states and territories, EPA estimates an average hourly salary rate of $73.58 (GS 14) for legal staff, $86.56 (GS 15) for managerial staff, $52.37 (GS 12) for technical staff, and $29.52 (GS 7) for cler ical staff. These rates include the overhead factor of

1.6.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

In estimating Agency burden hours and costs associated with activities in this ICR, EPA examined ICRs that had already been approved by OMB. ICRs reviewed include those for the UST progr am, Subtitle C program, and the original ICR that is now being renewed.

Estimates of Agency burden hours and costs a ssociated with all of the requirements of this ICR are provided in Exhibits 3 and 4. EPA Regional Offices will be involved in

these activities.12 

### • Exhibit 3 estimates EPA’s burden and costs for responding to permit program approval applicat ions for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous

waste.

• Exhibit 4 estimates EPA’s burden and costs for responding to both new and modified MSWLF permit program applications.

Agency Burden Estimates

Agency burden figures are based on EPA ’s experience in undertaking and completing this activity to date. Since it is not possible to accurately estimate how many respondents will submit applications in a given year, the estimates show total estimated burden and costs during the three year period suggested for submission in the regulation. Average annual burd en is obtained by dividing the total burden by three.

Agency Labor Costs

The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were from 2008. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2011 GS salary table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

EPA estimates an average hourly Regional l abor cost of $73.58 (GS 14) for legal staff, $86.56 (GS 15) fo r managerial staff, $52.37 (GS 12) for technical staff, and $29.52 (GS 7) for clerical staff. These hourly rates include the standard gover nment overhead

factor of 1.6.

Agency Burden

Total 3 YR Annual

4,310 Hours 1,437 Hours per year $240,393 Cost $80,131 Cost per year



### 6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibit 5 shows the total burden and co st to respondents and the State and government for all information collection r equirements covered in this ICR. EPA

estimates that the total bottom line burden for this information collection activity is $401,898 or $133,966 per year.

6(e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs13 

### The total number of respondents is 12 and the total burden hours are 2,405 hours per year. Of the 2,045 hours, 1, 437 is the burden for EPA Regions, and 968

hours is the burden for States. The tota l cost burden is $133,966 per year. Of the $133,966, $80,131 is the cost to EPA Regions (Agency), and $53,835 is the cost to

States. All costs are labor costs, there are no capital/st art-up or O&M costs associated

with this ICR.

Respondent Burden

Total 3 YR Annual

2,904 Hours 968 Hours per year $161,505 Cost $53,835 Cost per year



### 6(f) Reasons For Change in Burden

This ICR replaces ICR 1608.05, approved by OMB through February 29, 2012.

Burden hours for this ICR remains the same. For the prior ICR renewal all mention of

burden estimates for tribes which were contained in the original ICR were removed. In

addition, since the last clearance, additional states and territories have not been moving through the approval process for their MS WLF permit programs as we hoped they would. Therefore, the number of state and territorial remaining to obtain MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations has remained to 2. In addition, EPA estimates that as many as 5 states may choose to submit modifications to their approved programs.

Under the July 1, 1996 rulemaking fo r non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG hazardous waste, 45 states/territories have received CESQG hazardous waste permit program adequacy determinations. EPA estimates that no more than 5 additional States will apply for an adequacy determination during the next 3 years.

6(g) Burden Statement

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 242 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to gener ate, 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 veri fying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing in formation; adjust t he existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instru ctions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of informati on; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transm it 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. The14 

### OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on EPA 's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested me thods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public

docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0752 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulatio ns.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) , EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday, excl uding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that ar e available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then ke y in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you

can send comments to the Office of Info rmation and Regulatory A ffairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA2011-0752 and O MB Control Number 2050-0152 in any correspondence.15 EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1: 5 STATES/TERRITORIES APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MUNICIPAL, NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE

PERMIT PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal $73.58 per hour Manager $86.56 per hour Technical $52.37 per hour Clerical $29.52 per hour Total

Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 257, subpart B 5 10 32.5 0 47.5

Prepare narrative program description 0 20 80 20 120

Write transmittal memorandum 0 0.5 1 0.5 2

Prepare legal certification 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 2.5

Compile copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 4 0 4 7.5 15.5

Modify application, as necessary 4 10 40 10 64

Total hours per Respondent 14.5 41 157.5 38.5 251.5

Total cost per Respondent $1,066.91 $3,548.96 $8,248.28 $1,136.52 $14,000.67

Total Burden: Hour Total (251.5) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1,258 Hours

Total Cost: Cost Total ($14,000.67) x No. of Respondents (5) = $70,003.35

Regions = Agency Burden16 EXHIBIT 2: 7 STATE/TERRITORIES PREP ARING APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT

PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 2a: 2 STATES/TERRITORIES PREPARING NEW APPLICATIONS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal $73.58
per hour Manager $86.56
per hour Technical $52.37
per hour Clerical $29.52
per hour Total

Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part

258 10 20 65 0 95

Prepare narrative program description 0 40 160 40 240

Write transmittal memorandum 0 1 2 1 4

Prepare legal certification 3 1 0 1 5

Compile copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 8 0 8 15 31

Modify application, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128

Total hours per Respondent 29 82 315 77 503

Total cost per Respondent $2, 133.82 $7,097. 92 $16,496.55 $2,273.04 $28,001.33

Total Burden: Hour Total (503) x No. of Respondents (2) = 1,006 Hours Total Cost: Cost Total ($28,001.33) x No. of Respondents (2) = $56,002.6617 EXHIBIT 2b: 5 STATES/TERRITORIES MODIFYING APPROVED PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal $73.58 per hour Manager $86.56 per hour Technical $52.37 per hour Clerical $29.52 per hour Total

Hours

Modify program, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128

Total hours per Respondent 8 20 80 20 128

Total cost per Respondent $588.64 $1,731.20 $4,189.60 $590.40 $7,099.84

Total Burden: Hour Total (128) x No. of Respondents (5) = 640 Hours Total Cost: Cost Total ($7,099.84) x No. of Respondents (5) = $35,499.20

EXHIBIT 2

TOTAL BURDEN (2a+2b): 1,646 Hours TOTAL COST (2a+2b): $91,501.8618 Regions = Agency Burden EXHIBIT 3: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MUNICIPAL,

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS

WASTE PERMIT PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal $73.58
per hour Manager $86.56
per hour Technical $52.37
per hour Clerical $29.52
per hour Total

Hours

Review and comment on draft application, including meetings with applicant 5 5 40 8 58

Process and distribute application 0 0 5 4 9

Review application for completeness, and request

additional information 5 5 40 1 51

Review complete application 1 5 20 8 34

Regional Administrator makes

tentative determination 2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 0.5 5 2.5 8

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 2.5 10.5

Respond to significant

comments 2 2 20 2.5 26.5

Regional Administrator makes

final determination 2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 2 0.5 8 2.5 13

Total hours per Application 19 28 156 31 234

Total cost per Application $1,398.02 $2,423.68 $8,169.72 $915.12 $12,906.54

Total Burden: Hour (234) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1170 Hours

Total Cost: Cost ($12,906.54) x No. of Respondents (5) = $64,532.7019 Regions = Agency Burden

EXHIBIT 4: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 7 APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT

PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 4a: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 2 “NEW” APPLICATIONS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal $73.58 per hour Manager $86.56 per hour Technical $52.37 per hour Clerical $29.52 per hour Total

Hours

Review and comment on draft application, including meetings with applicant 10 10 80 16 116

Process and distribute application 0 0 10 8 18

Review application for completeness, and request

additional information 10 10 80 2 102

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68

Regional Administrator makes

tentative determination 4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 10 5 16

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21

Respond to significant

comments 4 4 40 5 53

Regional Administrator makes

final determination 4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 4 1 16 5 26

Total hours per Application 38 56 312 62 468

Total cost per Application $2,796.04 $4,847.36 $16,339.44 $1,830.24 $25,813.08

Total Burden: Hour (468) x No. of Respondents (2) = 936 Hours

Total Cost: Cost ($25,813.08) x No. of Respondents (2) = $51,626.16.20 EXHIBIT 4b: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 “MODIFIED” APPLICATIONS Regions = Agency Burden

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal $73.58
per hour Manager $86.56
per hour Technical $52.37
per hour Clerical $29.52
per hour Total

Hours

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68

Regional Administrator makes

tentative determination 4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 10 5 16

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21

Respond to significant

comments 4 4 40 5 53

Regional Administrator makes

final determination 4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 4 1 16 5 26

Total hours per Application 18 36 142 36 232

Total cost per Application $1,324.44 $3,116.16 $7,436.54 $1,062.72 $12,939.86

Total Burden: Hour (232) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1,160 Hours

Total Cost: Cost ($12,939.86) x No. of Respondents (5) = $64,699.30.21 EXHIBIT 4c: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 9 “RD&D” APPLICATIONS Regions = Agency Burden

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal $73.58 per hour Manager $86.56 per hour Technical $52.37 per hour Clerical $29.52 per hour Total

Hours

Review complete application 1 5 20 2 28

Regional Administrator makes

tentative determination 2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 4 3 8

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 5 13

Respond to significant

comments 4 4 20 5 33

Regional Administrator makes

final determination 2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 2 1 4 3 10

Total hours per Application 11 21 66 18 116

Total cost per Application $809.38 $1,817.76 $3,456.42 $531.36 $6,614.92

Total Burden: Hour (116) x No. of Respondents (9) = 1,044 Hours

Total Cost: Cost ($6,614.92) x No. of Respondents (9) = $59,534.28

EXHIBIT 4

TOTAL BURDEN (4a+4b+4c): 3,140 Hours TOTAL COST (4a+4b+4c): $175,859.7422 EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL BURDEN

EXHIBIT 5a: TOTAL HOUR BURDEN:

(Agency) Regions States/Territories Total

Preparing Non-Municipal,

Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive

CESQG Hazardous Waste Permit Program Applications 1,170 1,258 2,428

Preparing MSWLF Permit Program Applications 3,140 1,646 4,786

Total Burden 4,310 2,904 7,214

States/Territories Total Hour Burden: 2,904 hours over 3 years, or 968 hours per year

GRAND TOTAL HOUR BURDEN: 7,214 hours over 3 years, or 2,405 hours per year

EXHIBIT 5b: TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars):

(Agency) Regions States/Territories Total

Preparing Non-Municipal,

Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive

CESQG Hazardous Waste Permit Program Applications $64,533 $70,003 $134,536

Preparing MSWLF Permit Program Applications $175,860 $91,502 $267,362

Total Burden $240,393 $161,505 $401,898

States/Territories Total Cost Burden (Dollars): $161,505 over 3 years or $53,835 per year. GRAND TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars): $401,898 over 3 years or $133,966 per year.