Page 1 of 6 

### 2013 Hazardous Waste Report **Am endment to Information Collection Request**  **: Justification for proposed changes March 2**  **7 , 2012** 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in order to collect information regarding hazardous waste generation and management through the use of the Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms (EPA Form 8700

- 13 A/B)

. In order to obtain OMB approval, ORC R mu st submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB . An ICR provides an overview of the information collection requirements (e.g., reporting or recordkeeping requirements) , and includes an estimate of the time and cost burden placed on respondents (e.g., private sector, State and local governments) and EPA

. The currently approved Hazardous W aste Report ICR covers reporting year 2011. ORCR is amending the existing ICR in order to reflect the time and cost burden associated with reporting year 2013. For reporting year 2013 , ORCR is making some changes to the Hazardous Wa ste Report Instructions and Forms in order to ease reporting and improve clarity for filers. These changes include:

 Revised Language for Some Source Code Descriptions. ORCR has made e ditorial changes to the description of some source codes in order to improve clarity for filers.

 Consolidated Management Method Codes. ORCR has consolidated s om e management method codes in order to ease reporting.

 Revised Waste Minimization Codes. ORCR has revised t he waste minimization codes in order to assist filers with reporting their waste minimization activities. The above changes on the ma nagem ent m ethod codes and waste minimization codes were proposed in the Draft 2011 Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms made available for public comment in March 2011 (76 FR 17414 ; March 29, 2011). However, in consultation with States and EPA Regions , ORCR decided to delay these proposed changes until the 20 13 Hazardous Waste Report in order to provide adequate time for further study and im plem entation

. The decision to delay implementation of these changes was stated in the ICR supporting statement for the 2011 Hazardous Wa ste Report, which was submitted for OMB approval last year. Furthermore, starting with reporting year 2013, ORCR wants to make the Hazardous Wa ste Report Instructions and Forms readily available to States, EPA Regions (if a State is not authorized to implement the biennial reporting requirement), and filers at the beginning of each reporting year in order to facilitate im plem entation of any changes to the Hazardous Wa ste Report forms. For example, EPA and States can inform report filers of the final changes with adequate time for im plem entation, e.g., States will have adequate time to plan and provide training to report filers. In addition, States and report filers will have adequate tim e to revise their in

- house or commercial data system in order to include new or revised Hazardous Wa ste Report data items

. The following sections provide additional information on the changes to the Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms for reporting year 2013

. **Revised Language for Some Source Code Descriptions**  ORCR has made e ditorial changes to the description of some source codes in order to improve clarity for filers. For example, ORCR is changing Source Code G25 from “hazardous waste management” to “treatment, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste” in order to better communicate the meaning of this code. See the proposed changes identified in the “ Source Codes ” table in cluded in the “Other ReferencePage 2 of 6

Information and Code Lists” section of the Draft 2013 Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms included as part of the docket for the F ederal Register Notice. **Consolidated Management Method Codes** In March 2011 , ORCR published a Federal Register N otice notifying the public that the Draft 2011 Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms was available for comment (76 FR 17414 ; March 29, 2011) . ORCR also included in the docket a memorandum that provided supporting information on the proposed changes included in the Draft 2011 Hazardous Wa ste Report

. One of these proposed changes was the cons olidation of management method codes. However, in consultation with States and EPA Regions, ORCR decided to defer consolidation of the management method code s until the 2013 Hazardous W aste Report in order to provide adequate time for implementation of these changes

. In the Draft 2013 Hazardous Wa ste Report, ORCR has consolidated ma ny of the ma nagem ent m ethod codes associated with “destruction or treatment prior to disposal at another s ite ” in order to ease reporting. For example, previous codes H071 (chemical reduction), H073 (cyanide destruction), H075 (chemical oxidation), H076 (wet air oxidation) and H077 (other chemical precipitation) have all been consolidated under the new management method code H070 (chemical treatment). I n order to assist filers with the transition , t he management method codes for reporting year 2013 have been mapped to the management method codes used for previous reporting ye ars. See the proposed changes identified in the “ Management Method Codes ” table included in the “ Other Reference Information and Code Lists” section of the D raft 2013 Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms included as part of the docket for the F ederal Register Notice. **Revised Waste Minimization Codes** ORCR has revised t he waste minimization codes in order to assist filers with reporting their waste mi nim ization efforts . The new waste minimization codes identify when waste minimization efforts occurred (whether initiated prior to the reporting year or during the reportin g year) and whether waste mi nim ization efforts were undertaken. In addition, t he new waste minimization codes include examples of types of waste minimization activities. ORCR anticipates that we will be able to collect basic waste mi nim ization informatio n through t he use of the revised waste minimization codes , which me et the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 261.41(a) and 262. 27

. The proposed waste m inim ization codes also me et basic targeting analysis needs , and can be used as a starting point for further studies and project planning on waste minimization and pollution prevention to be performed by EPA’s or States’ individual programs. The remainder of this section provides information on the need for and the u se of the waste minimization data , as well as on the development of the revised list of waste minimization code s included in the D raft 2013 Hazardous Waste Report

. It also addresses the public comments received in response to the F ederal Register Notice published in March 2011

. Background In the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress established the following national policy, making waste minimization the nation's preferred hazardous waste management practice: "...the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. W aste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to mi nim ize the present and future threat to human health and the envi ronment." (RCRA Section 1003(b)) In response to Congress’ national policy on waste minimization, EPA has promulgated regulations that require generators of hazardous waste to comply with waste minimization requirements. For example, generators are requi red to have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree they have determined to be economically practicable (40 CFR 262.27)

. In addition, u nder 40 CFR 262.41 (a) , which contains the requirements for the Hazardous Wa ste Report , generators mustPage 3 of 6

provide to the regulatory authority a description of the efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated. To ensure that generators are complying with RCRA and its implementing regula tions pertaining to waste mi nim ization, EPA needs to collect information on waste minimization efforts. There are two ways in which EPA may obtain information on waste minimization efforts : (1) lim ited surveys of selected dem ographics and (2) the Hazardo us W aste Report. Given that the Hazardous W aste Report process is already in place and, under RCRA, EPA has the authority and obligation to collect information on waste mi nim ization activities, the Hazardous W aste Report is the most cost

- effective me chani sm to obtain the information needed in order to monitor and evaluate the extent to which hazardous waste is being reduced or eliminated

. Information on waste minimization is not available from any source other than hazardous waste generators . EPA’s ORCR is the only office within the Agency requiring the reporting and recordkeeping of this information. No other Federal age ncy or department collects information on waste minimization efforts

. EPA may

use i nformation on waste minimization at the national level, among other things, to:

 Support and evaluate program initiatives. Information on waste minimization may assist EPA in determining whether the Agency’s program initiatives are promoting or preventing waste mi nim ization.

 Target outreach efforts f or waste minimization. Analysis of information on waste minimization may allow EPA to identify new or existing facilities with th e same characteristics as those facilities already conducting waste minimization activities. A similar type of analysis also may be conducted at the industry and/or waste stream level.

 Provide information to the public and other EPA stakeholders. Information on waste minimization may allow EPA to evaluate trend analyses and share with the public and other EPA stakeholders chan ges in waste minimization activity over time.

 Meet regulatory mandates and plan/develop regulations. Regulatory development always involve s conducting an economic impact analysis. As part of this analysis, EPA needs to establish a reliable baseline and estimate changes in facility behavior as a result of different regulatory options. Wa ste mi nim ization is often a component that is included, or should be included , in this analysis.

 Support initiatives of other EPA offices. Information on waste minimization may be used to support initiatives of other EPA offices, including EPA Regional Offices , EPA’s Office of E nforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA), and EPA's Office of Polluti on Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

. I nformation on waste minimization also may be used by other stakeholders, including States, industry, and public interest groups

. Waste Minimization Code List Included in 2009 Hazardous Waste Report As of reporting year 2009, the Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms require that generators provide information regarding waste minimization efforts undertaken at their facilities. In order to report this information, filers would select a single code from a list of five (5) waste minimization codes

. Proposed W aste Minimization Code List Included in Draft 2011 Hazardous Waste Report in March 2011 In consultation with States regarding the 2009 waste minimization codes , ORCR developed a revised list of waste minimization codes . This list consisted of 18 codes, and was included in the Draft 2011 Hazardous W aste Report ma de available to the public in March 2011 (76 FR 17414 , March 29, 2011)

. ORCR sought public comment on the proposed changes to the list of waste minimization codes

.Page 4 of 6

ORCR received three public comments (submitted by Illinois , Ohio, and Texas ) on the list of waste mi nim ization codes proposed in March 2011 (i.e., the list of codes in the Draft 2011 Hazardous Waste Report). These three commenters questioned why we need to collect these data, how we are going to use them, and why we need a longer list of waste minimization codes. These commenters also argued that EPA did not conduct a thorough analysis of the 2009 waste minimization data and had comments regarding our definition of source reduction. In consultation with States and EPA Regions , ORCR decided to defer changes to the waste minimizat ion code list until the 2013 Hazardous W aste Report in order to have adequate time to consider comments and conduct detailed analyses of the 2009 waste minimization data. Analysis of Wa ste Minimization Data reported in the 2009 Hazardous W aste Report ORCR more thoroughly reviewed its need for the waste minimization data and conducted an analysis of the waste minimization data collected as part of the 2009 Hazardous Wa ste Report . Below are some general observations , based on the data presented in the table below :

 Waste Minimization Was Not Attempted or Wa s Uns uccessful

 Of the 13,898 unique facilities in the waste minimization data available for review and analysis, 12,524 facilities (or 90%) reported at least one waste stream for which waste minimization was not attempted or was unsuccessful (i.e., at least one waste stream with W aste Minimization Code N or X). The majority of these facilities (i.e., 12,141 facilities or 87% of the total number of unique facilities) indicated that n o waste minimization efforts were implemented for the waste (i.e., W aste Minimization Code X).

 Of the 152,653 waste streams in the waste minimization data available for review and analysis, waste minimization was not attempted or was un successful for 128,421 waste streams (or 84 %). For t he majority of these waste streams (i.e., 123,393 waste streams or 81% ) no waste mi nim ization efforts were implemented (i.e., were represented by Wa ste Minimization Code X).

 Waste Minimization Was Attempted and W as Successful

 Of the 13,898 unique facilities in the waste minimization data available for review and analysis, 4,531 facilities (or 33%) reported at least one waste stream for which waste minimization was attempted and was successful (i.e., at least one waste stream wi th W aste Minimization Code Y, R, or S). The majority

of these facilities (i.e., 3,227 facilities or 23% of the total number of unique facilities) indicated that waste minimization was implemented and was successful in reducing quantity and/or toxicity (i. e., Wa ste Minimization Code Y).

 Of the 152,653 waste streams in the waste minimization data available for review and analysis, waste minimization was attempted and was successful for 24,232 waste streams (or 16%). For the majority of these waste streams (i.e., 18,134 waste streams or 12%) waste minimization was im plem ented and was successful in reducing quantity and/or toxicity (i.e., were represented by Waste Minimization Code Y).Page 5 of 6 **Waste Minimization Code and Description Facilities**  **Waste Streams Generated**  **Waste Quantity (Provided as a Reference)**  **Number Percent** 

**of Total Number**  **Percent of Total**  **Tons Percent**  **of Total Waste Minimization was not attempted or was unsuccessful** 
N Waste minimization efforts were unsuccessful in reducing quantity and/or toxicity (Please detail reasons in the Comments section) 1,044 8% 5,028 3% 1,620,222 5%
X No waste minimization efforts were implemented for this waste 12,141 87% 123,393 81% 21,978,891 65% Subtotal 12,524 a 90% 128,421 84% 23,599,114 70% **Waste Minimization was attempted and was successful** 
Y Waste minimization was implemented and was successful in reducing quantity and/or toxicity (Please detail reasons in the Comments section) 3,227 23% 18,134 12% 7,758,951 23%
R Recycling on

- site was implemented and was successful 571 4% 1,418 1% 1,966,671 6% S Began to ship waste off

-site for recycling 1,254 9% 4,680 3% 310,711 1% Subtotal 4,531 a 33% 24,232 16% 10,036,333 30% **Total 13,898**  **a 100%**  **152,653 100%**  **33,635,447 100%** 

a This is the number of unique facilities. A facility may report more than one waste minimization code. Therefore, the number of facilities is not additive.
The analysis of the 2009 waste minimization data included reviewing thousands of comments submitted by facilities . For example :

 Of the 18,134 waste streams represented by W aste Minimization Code Y, 11,420 waste streams (or 63%) have comments on waste minimization activities.

 Of the 11,420 waste streams with comments on waste minimization activities, a sample of about 5, 200 (or 4 6 %) were reviewed and matched to the was te minimization codes proposed in March 2011 (i.e., codes in the Draft 2011 Hazardous Waste Report)

. This samp le of 5, 200 waste streams covers 47 States. ORCR reviewed many of the comments on waste minimization activities and examined how well the comments matched with the waste minimization codes proposed in March 2011 (i.e., codes in the Draft 2011 Hazardous Waste Report) . The results were mixed; some waste minimization efforts fit cleanly in the codes and others did not. Some comments needed more than one of the codes to describe the facility’s waste minimization efforts. Finally, some of the efforts ident ified by the facilities were not waste mi nim ization efforts at all. From the analysis of the 2009 waste minimization data , the instructions for reporting waste minimization data lacked description and provided no examples. Most facilities provided comm ents to describe their waste minimization efforts, which resulted in a large quantity of qualitative information that was resource

intensive to review and not easy to analyze. Additionally, there was confusion about whether to report new waste minimizatio n activities undertaken du ring that reporting year, or report waste minimization activities undertaken during previous years. Based on the analysis of the 2009 waste minimization data , we develop ed the revised waste m inim ization codes list by modifying the original list of codes in cluded in the 2011 Hazardous W aste Report Instructions and Forms (same list included in the 2009 Hazardous Wa ste Report Instructions and Forms). The revised waste minimization codes list also streamlin es and reorganizes the list of waste minimization codes proposed in March 2011

.Page 6 of 6

Proposed W aste Minimization Code List Included in the ICR Amendment for Draft 2013 Hazardous W aste Report Based on our analysis of the 2009 waste minimization data and review of comments received on the list of waste minimization codes proposed in March 2011 (i.e., the codes in the Draft 2011 Hazardous Wa ste Report) , ORCR has revised the set of waste minimization codes as follows:

 The revised set of codes streamlines th e waste minimization code list first proposed in March 2011

. The revised list of waste minimization codes consists of six (6) codes. This new set of codes consolidates categories, which makes it easier for facilities to report their efforts , especially for those facilities with waste mi nim ization efforts that would have fit into more than one category in the proposed March 2011 list

. The streamlined codes are organized in to three ( 3 ) categories and each category has two (2 ) waste minimization codes; the first category

- initiated prior to the reporting year; the second category - initiated during the reporting year, the third category

- effort impracticable or no effort

.

 The new set of codes builds in examples and descriptions of the waste minimization efforts, which should reduce the frequency in which facilities report waste minimization efforts that are not really waste minimization efforts.

 The new set of codes is less labor intensive to review and helps to differentiate new waste mi nim ization efforts initiated during the reporting year from efforts that were initiated in previous ye ars.

 T he requirement to submit comments is optional. As a result, there will be a reduction in burden for reporting facilities. In addition, there will be a reduction in burden for EPA and States when performing data quality assurance/quality control activities. See the proposed changes identified in the Waste Minimization Codes table included in the “Other Reference Information and Code Lists” section of the Draft 2013 Hazardous Wa ste Report Instructions and Forms included as part of the docket for the Federal Register Notice. Note, however, that, b ecause the revised list of waste minimization codes consists of a sm aller num ber of codes than the list proposed in March 2011 , it does reduce the specificity of the information regarding individual waste minimization efforts. However, the revised code list should provide enough information for EPA and oth er stakeholders to target waste minimization efforts at the national level . It also should allow us to decipher patterns in the data to identify where possible case studies could yield opportunities in waste mi nim ization

.