SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 2382.01

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQU IREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED

RULE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF NON-HAZARDOUS SECONDARY

MATERIALS THAT ARE SOLID WASTE

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20460

April 13, 2010i TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION........................................1 1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection .....................................................1 1(b) Short Characterization .............................................................................................1

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION...............................................................2 2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection.....................................................................2 2(b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data ....................................................................2

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER

COLLECTION CRITERIA ................................................................................................2 3(a) Nonduplication.........................................................................................................2 3(b) Public Notice............................................................................................................2 3(c) Consultations............................................................................................................3 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.........................................................................3 3(e) General Guidelines...................................................................................................3 3(f) Confidentiality .........................................................................................................3 3(g) Sensitive Questions..................................................................................................3

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................4 4(a) Respondents and NAICS Codes ..............................................................................4 4(b) Information Requested.............................................................................................5

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.........................................6 5(a) Agency Activities.....................................................................................................6 5(b) Small Entity Flexibility............................................................................................6

6. ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION.................7 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden................................................................................7 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ..................................................................................7 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs .....................................................................8 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs .........................8 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs...................................................................10 6(f) Reason for Change in Burden................................................................................11 6(g) Burden Statement...................................................................................................11ii EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost......................................................................13

Exhibit 2: Estimated Agency Burden and Cost ............................................................................14

Exhibit 3: Estimated Average Burden per Respondent ................................................................151 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

This information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule on The Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary

Materials That Are Solid Waste,” EPA ICR Number 2382.01.

1(b) Short Characterization

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) re quires the promulgation of regulations to control emissions of specific hazardous air pollu tants from “major sources” within defined source categories. 1,2 One such regulation, promulgated in September 2004, is the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boilers Ru le”), which established Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for this source category. Section 129 of the CAA directed EPA to promulgate regulations to cont rol emissions of nine specified pollutants from

“solid waste incineration units.” EPA did so in December 2000 with the publication of the final Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing

Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste In cineration Units (the “C ISWI Rule”). Units regulated under Section 129 cannot be subject to any rule promulgated under Section 112.

In September 2005, in response to a subsequent petition for reconsideration, EPA amended the CISWI Rule when it promulgate d revised definitions for “solid waste,” “commercial or industrial waste,” and “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit” (the “CISWI Definitions Rule”). As part of th e CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA made a distinction between solid waste incinerators and boilers, char acterizing the former as units that are designed and operated to discard materi als through high temperature com bustion. However, EPA excluded

from the definition of a solid waste incinerator th ose units designed to rec over energy for “useful purposes such as steam gene ration or process heating.”

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and

remanded to EPA both the CISWI Definitions Ru le and the Boilers Rule. In vacating the definitions rule, the Court noted that, despite the potential reasonableness of the functional

distinction between boilers and incinerators, the CAA is unambi guous in its requirement that EPA regulate any commercial or in dustrial incinerator that combus ts any solid waste material, as a solid waste incineration unit regardless of whethe r the waste is burned as a “fuel.” The Court also concluded that EPA erred in excluding from the CISWI Definitions Rule units that combust solid waste for the purposes of energy recovery and including these units in the Boilers Rule. In

1 A “major source” is any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, at least 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or at l east 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.

2 The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to identify and lis t the area source categories (sources that are not major sources) that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban air toxics asso ciated with area sources and subject them to standards under the Section 112(d) of th e Act. EPA’s Urban Air Toxics Strategy is summarized in Federal Register , Vol 64, No. 137, 38706, July 19, 1999.2 short, revision to the Definitions Rule necessitates a revision to the Boilers Rule as well, since

the former will result in a different set of units that will be subject to the latter.

EPA’s response to the Court’s decision requi res a clear determin ation of which nonhazardous, “secondary materials” 3 constitute RCRA Subtitle D “solid waste” in order to clarify

when the combustion of these materials would be regulated pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as opposed to potential regulation unde r Section 112 if a combustion unit burns materi als that are not solid waste when combusted). Thus, EP A has developed the Proposed Rule for the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste.

This ICR is a description of the information collection requirements for combustion units that use non-hazardous secondary ma terials that are solid wastes.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection

The requirements covered in this ICR are necessary for EPA to identify non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste when combusted and to enforce Sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. EPA is pr oposing the establishment of these information collection requirements under the authority of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

2(b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data

EPA will use the collected information to en sure that non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes are managed as such and th at combustion units that use these materials are regulated under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. In particular, EPA will use information collected pursuant to the Propos ed Rule’s petition process requi rements to assess whether the

materials included in each petition are solid wastes.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION S, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

None of the information required by the Pr oposed Rule would duplicate information required by existing RCRA regulations.

3(b) Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reducti on Act of 1995, EPA will open a 45 day public comment period at the time that this Proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register . To

3 A “secondary material” is any material that is not the primary product of a ma nufacturing or commercial process, including but not limited to post-consumer material, post-industrial material, and scrap.3 assist the public in commenti ng on the proposal, EPA raised a num ber of issues in the preamble to the Proposed Rule and asked for the public to comment on them. At the end of the comment period, EPA will review public comments received in response to the notice and will address comments received, as appropriate.

3(c) Consultations

EPA consulted and collected information from interested parties over the course of several months to support the Proposed Rule. EPA solicited and received comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and addr esses these comments in the preamble to the Proposed Rule. 4 EPA also met and communicated with industry associations, generators and users of the materials potentially affected by the rule, as well as other interested parties. The summaries of the meetings and te lephone conversations with intere sted parties are available in the docket for the Proposed Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329).

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the Proposed Rule. EPA is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary, and to the extent possible, the Agency has attemp ted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that, if the minimum in formation collection requirements of the Proposed Rule are not met, neither industry nor EPA will be able to ensure that non-haza rdous secondary materials that are solid wastes are managed in a manner th at is protective of human health and the

environment.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB’s implementing regulations, EPA’s ICR Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

3(f) Confidentiality

Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, wh ich defines EPA’s general policy on public disclosure of information, cont ain provisions for confidentiality. However, the Agency does not anticipate that bu sinesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or part of the Proposed Rule. If su ch a claim is asserted, EPA must and will treat the information in accordance with the regulations ci ted above. EPA also will assure that this information collection complies with the Privac y Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in the information collection requirements associated with the Proposed Rule.

4 The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available in Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2, 2009, pp. 41-61.4 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents and NAICS Codes

The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)

codes associated with the fac ilities most likely to be affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR.

NAICS NAICS Category

111 Crop Production 113 Forestry and Logging 114 Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry

211 Oil and Gas Extraction 212 Mining (Except Oil and Gas)

221 Utilities 237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 311 Food Manufacturing 312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

313 Textile Mills

314 Textile Product Mills 316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 321 Wood Product Manufacturing 322 Paper Manufacturing 323 Printing and Related Support Activities 324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 325 Chemical Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance and Component Manufacturing 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

424 Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers

446 Health and Personal Care Stores 451 Sporting Good, Hobby, Book and Music Stores 481 Air Transportation 482 Rail Transportation 486 Pipeline Transportation 488 Support Activities for Transportation 493 Warehousing and Storage

522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
541 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 561 Administrative and Support Services 562 Waste Management and Remediation Services

611 Educational Services5 NAICS NAICS Category

622 Hospitals

721 Accommodation 811 Repair and Maintenance

921 Public Administration

928 Public Administration

This table is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this action.

4(b) Information Requested

This section describes information collection requirements applicable to entities that would be affected by the Proposed Rule.

Petition Process

(i) Data items :

Under the Proposed Rule, the Administrator may grant a non-waste determination that a non-hazardous secondary material fuel that has not been managed within the control of the generator has not been discarded, and is indistinguishable in all re levant aspects from a fuel product, and thus, is not a

solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To receive consideration, a petitioner must request a case-specific non-waste determination. While the process is voluntary, it requires the petitioner to provide informati on describing how the secondary materials satisfy the legitimacy criteria, along with analysis of certain market, human and e nvironmental health, and other

factors.

(ii) Respondent activities :

In order for EPA to grant the non-waste determination, a petitioner must show (1)

evidence of the material’s treatment in the market place as a fuel, product, or intermediate rather than a waste; (2) evidence that the secondary ma terial’s chemical and phy sical characteristics are comparable to commercial fuels, products, or inte rmediates; (3) the market’s capacity to use the material in a reasonable time frame; and (4) evid ence that the material’s constituents are not discarded to the air, water, or land, from th e point of generation to the combustion of the secondary material, at significantly higher levels than would othe rwise be released (from both a statistical perspective and an environm ental and health risk perspective).

Notification

The Proposed Rule does not contai n any notification requirements.

Rule Familiarization (Reading the Regulations)

(i) Data items :6 None.

(ii) Respondent activities :

It is expected that entities potentially affected by the Proposed Rule will read it to assess how it may affect their operations.

Title V Permitting

In addition, under the Proposed Rule, some com bustion units that are currently regulated

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act will be regulated under Section 129. For a limited number of units, this change in regulatory status could potentially trigger the permitting requirements of Title V of the Clean Air Act.

Title V permitting requirements apply to all major emissions sources, cement kilns, and electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities/units. 5 Therefore, many of the units potentially affected by the rule are already required to obta in a Title V permit. The data available to the Agency do not indicate that any units will be ne wly subject to the Title V permitting requirement as a result of the Proposed Rule . Therefore, this ICR does not ex amine any activi ties associated with Title V permitting.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—A GENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

As discussed above, EPA is proposing a self -implementing approach that requires facilities to determine whether a given material meets EPA’s proposed non- waste criteria. The Agency is also proposing the es tablishment of a petition proce ss under which facilities may seek clarity on whether the materials th at they burn are considered solid wastes. Therefore, under this proposal EPA will process and review the petitions of facilities seeking non-waste

determinations and decide whether the inform ation provided in each petition warrants a nonwaste determination.

Because the Proposed Rule contains no notification requirements, the Agency will not engage in notification review under the rule.

5(b) Small Entity Flexibility

The self-implementing approach for non-wa ste determinations proposed by EPA would provide small entities with flex ibility to minimize their inform ation collection burdens under the Proposed Rule. Under this approach, small entities would not be required to submit any

5 40 CFR Part 270 includes detailed information on the requirements of the Title V permitting program.7 paperwork to EPA or state agencies and woul d have the flexibility to develop their own individualized approaches for determining whet her the materials that they burn meet the nonwaste criteria included in the Proposed Rule.

6. ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the respondent burden associated with the new paperwork requirements in the Proposed Rule. As shown in the Exhibit, EPA estimates that the total onetime respondent burden for the new requirements in the rule varies betwee n 1 hour per year (per respondent) and approximately 703 hours per year (per respondent), depending on whether the facility incurs solely rule familiarization costs, or whether it also incurs petition process costs.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Exhibit 1 summarizes the total costs of the information collection activities associated with the Proposed Rule. As indicated in the exhibit, these range fr om $64 per respondent for rule familiarization to $71,440 for the petition pr ocess for non-waste determinations. Where applicable, these cost estimates reflect the cost of labor as well as operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Labor Costs

For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly res pondent labor cost of $94 for legal staff, $73 for managerial staff, $47 fo r technical staff, and $26 for clerical staff. These hourly labor costs were obtained from the following sources:

• Hourly Wage: Bureau of Labor Statistics, o ccupational earnings data for 2008. 6

• Benefits Percentage: U.S. Department of Labor data on benefits as a percentage of total compensation. 7

• Overhead: Expressed as a percent of wages, as summarized in the regulatory impact analysis for the 2008 Defini tion of Solid Waste Final Rule. 8

6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational earnings tables: United States, December 2007 – January 2009 (average reference date July 2008), Table 3 Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly, and annual earnings and mean weekly and annual hours, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.ht m#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009.

7 U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, September 10, 2009. Derived from percent of total comp ensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in

Table 2.

8 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions Of the RCRA Definition Of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1.8 Annual Capital and Operation & Maintenance Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good necessary to provide the required information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital co sts in carrying out the information collection requirements of the Proposed Rule.

O&M costs are those costs associated with materials and services procured for the information collection requirements included in th e ICR. For this ICR, O&M costs may include material testing for the petition process, as well as the costs of supplies used in the preparation of each petition (e.g., photocopies).

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

Exhibit 2 below presents the estimated Agen cy burden and costs associated with the requirements covered in this ICR. We estima te that EPA would incur a one-time cost of approximately $40,300 per respondent for the petition process.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Respondent Universe

The number of affected entities varies by information collection activity, as summarized

below:

Rule Familiarization: EPA estimates that 1,461 facilities will incur rule familiarization costs under the Proposed Rule. This estimate is based upon information compiled by EPA on the non-hazardous secondary material s burned by individual combustion units potentially affected by either of the followi ng rulemakings: (1) the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Inci neration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); and (2) the proposed National Emission St andards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Industrial/Commercial/Institutiona l Boilers and Process Heater s (the major source Boilers Rule). 9,10

Petition Process: EPA assumes that those facilities that currently burn secondary materials considered to be waste under the Proposed Rule will undergo the petition process for non-waste determinatio n if the material is not burne d within the control of the

9 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft combustor database in support of the proposed CISWI Rule, April 14, 2009 and U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft combustor database in support of the proposed major source Boilers Rule, March 20, 2009.

10 EPA is also issuing proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule). The vast majority of such units, however, are not designed to burn secondary material s and will therefore not be affected by the proposed

NHSM rule.9 generator. Based on the unit-level informa tion compiled by EPA for the proposed CISWI Rule and the proposed major source Boilers Rule, the Agency estimates that a total of 168 facilities will submit pe titions to the Agency. 11

Respondent Burden and Cost

Based on the universe data presented a bove, EPA estimates the respondent burden

associated with all of the new information collec tion requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibit 1. A discussion of the assumptions used in developing these burden estimates follows.

Rule Familiarization

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 1,4 61 potentially affected facilities will read

the rule. Based on the ICR fo r another recent RCRA rulemaki ng, we estimate that the per facility burden for rule familiarization is one hour and that the cost per facility for rule familiarization is $64. 12

Petition Process

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 16 8 potentially affected f acilities will file petitions for non-waste determinations. Specificall y, EPA assumes that all facilities that burn non-hazardous secondary materials considered to be solid waste when combusted under the Proposed Rule will file petitions for non-wa ste determinations. Similar to reading the regulations, it is assumed that this repr esents a one-time cost per facility.

We estimate the burden and co st of the petition process based on the estimated burden and cost for existing petition processes whereby parties may request excl usions similar to the

non-waste determinations established in the Proposed Rule. For example, the Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Reque st Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal) includes estimates of the per facility burden of petition

submissions for hazardous waste exclusions or variances from solid waste or boiler

determinations. Because of the similarities between these petition processes and the process for obtaining a non-waste determination, this ICR us es the burden estimates contained in the Supporting Statement as an indicator of the pe r-facility burden of petitioning for a non-waste determination under the Proposed Rule. Specifically , we rely on two sets of burden estimates within the Supporting Statemen t: the 40 CFR 260.22 delisting petition, whereby petitioners request that EPA amend 40 CFR 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility from

classification as a hazardous wast e; and a subpart of the petition for variance from classification as a solid waste, whereby a petitioner must fulf ill the relevant criteria in 40 CFR 260.31(c) and

show that a reclaimed material is not a solid waste because it will be further reclaimed.

11 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, op cit

..

12 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2324.01 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule in Adding Pharmaceu ticals to the Universal Waste Rule (Proposed Rule), September 2008, Exhibit 1.10 The delisting petition requires th at the petitioner demonstrate that the secondary material

does not contain concentrations of certain substances that would classify it as a hazardous waste. This procedure includes estimating the quantity a nd variability of waste generation, describing in detail the equipment used to measure chemical content, and testing the material for hazardous contaminants. The delisting petition’s requireme nts are analogous to th e criterion under the Proposed Rule that a material must have chem ical and physical characteristics similar to commercial fuels, products, or intermediates to be considered a legitimate alternative fuel. The estimated burden per facility for this process is approximately 560 hours for each facility itself, and the estimated cost is $64,800.

The petition for variance from classification as a solid waste requires that a material be commodity-like. The petitioner must show that th e material (1) has been processed, (2) requires further processing, (3) is analogo us to raw material, (4) is ha ndled to minimize loss, (5) is valuable, and (6) has an available market. These requirements are similar to several aspects of the petition process included in the Proposed Rule , including (1) evidence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate; (2) the ma rket’s capacity to use the material in a reasonable time frame; and (3) ev idence that the material’s constituents are not discarded to the air, water, or land, from th e point of generation to the combustion of the secondary material, at significantly higher levels than would othe rwise be released (from both a statistical perspective and an envi ronmental and health risk perspective) (i.e., that it is treated as a valuable commodity). The estimated per fac ility burden of this petition process is approximately 142 hours (for the facility itself), and the estimated cost per facility is $6,700.

Summing these components, we estimate th at the average res pondent burden for the petition process is 702 hours per facility a nd that the cost is $71,440 per facility.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Burden and Costs

In Exhibit 1, EPA presents the total res pondent burden and cost for each of the two paperwork requirements associated with the Pr oposed Rule (i.e., rule familiarization and the petition process for non-waste determinations ). As described above, these paperwork requirements apply to units and facilities that bu rn non-hazardous secondar y materials. The total respondent burden and costs for these requirements are as follows:

Rule Familiarization

All potentially affected facili ties will incur the one-time co st of reading the rule. EPA

estimates that the hours burden of rule familiariza tion is 1,461 hours and that the associated cost is $93,600.11 Petition Process

Facilities that burn non-hazardous secondary materials that are considered solid waste under the Proposed Rule are expected to incur the one-time cost of petitioning for non-waste determination. The estimated (one-time) hours burden for respondents is 118,000 hours and the estimated (one-time) cost of the petition process for respondents is approximately $12 million.

Agency Burden and Costs

Exhibit 2 summarizes the total Agency burden and cost associated with the paperwork requirements for the Proposed Rule. As indicated in the exhibit, the Agency’s burden and costs relate to the petition process for non-waste dete rminations included in the Proposed Rule. The one-time burden realized by the Agency for the pe tition process included in the Proposed Rule is approximately 127,000 hours. EPA estimates that the cost incurred by the Agency under the petition process is approximately $6.8 million.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

As described in this ICR, EPA expects that th e Proposed Rule will resu lt in an increase in burden to users of non-hazardous secondary material s and the Agency itself. This increase in burden reflects specific paperw ork requirements established by the Proposed Rule (e.g., the petition process for non-waste determinations). EPA has determined that these paperwork requirements are necessary for informed assessmen ts of the waste status of certain secondary materials, and to ensure that non-hazardous seconda ry materials are managed in a manner that is

consistent with their status as a wast e or non-waste under the Proposed Rule.

6(g) Burden Statement

Exhibit 3 summarizes the average burden associated with each of the paperwork requirements associated with the Proposed Rule, presented separately for regulated entities and EPA. The paperwork requirements reflected in th e exhibit include one-time activities for (1) the petition process for non-waste determinations included in the Proposed Rule and (2) rule

familiarization.

As indicated in Exhibit 3, we estimate the to tal burden associated with one-time activities as a range for regulated entities and EPA. This is because the burden per respondent depends on whether the respondent files a petition for non-waste determination.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods fo r minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA ha s established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, whic h is available for online viewing at www.regulations.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. The12 EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is ope n from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephon e 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 are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send

comments to the Office of Information and Re gulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Wash ington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please

include the EPA Docket ID Number EP A-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 and OMB Control Number 2050-new in any correspondence.13Exhibit 1 - Estimated Respondent Burden and CostHours and Costs per RespondentTotal Hours and CostsINFORMATIONCOLLECTIONACTIVITYLegal$94/HrManager.$73/HrTech..$47/HrCler.$26/HrRespon.HoursLaborCost1Capital/StartupCostO & MCostCost perRespondentNumber ofRespondentsTotalHoursTotalCostRULE FAMILIARIZATION – Read the rule (one-time burden and cost)Affected Facilities 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.02$64.0 $0.0 $0.0 $64 1,461 1,461 $93,587PETITION PROCESS (one-time)Affected Facilities 0.0 20.3 669.5 12.2 702.0 $33,1063$0.0 $38,3343$71,441 168 117,929 $12.0million1Hourly Wages:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational earnings tables: United States, December 2007 – January 2009 (average reference dateJuly 2008), Table 3Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly,and annual earnings and mean weekly and annual hours, accessed athttp://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009.Benefits Percentage:U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, September 10, 2009. Derived frompercent of total compensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in Table 2.Overhead Percentage:U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions Of the RCRA DefinitionOf Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1.2Hours for Rule Familiarization:U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2324.01 Reporting and RecordkeepingRequirements for the Proposed Rule in Adding Pharmaceuticals to the Universal Waste Rule (Proposed Rule), September 2008, Exhibit 1.3Petition Process Costs:Derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing andRulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007. Values from this source adjusted to year 2008 dollars.4Uncertainty Regarding Number of Respondents for the Petition Process:As described in previous sections of thisdocument, EPA assumes that facilities potentiallyaffected by the proposed CISWI rule and the proposed major sourceBoilers Rule will submit petitions to EPA for a non-waste determination if they burn materialsconsidered to be a solid waste under the proposed rule and if thematerial is burned outside the control of the generator. Based on these conditions, the Agency estimatesthat 168 facilities will submit petitions. In reality, the number of petitions that will be submitted is uncertain and dependent on several factors that EPA is unable toassess (e.g., the operational characteristics of individual facilities). Therefore, as a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated the costs of the petition process based onpetition submission information for other petition processes established under RCRA. Based on data for the variance from classification as solid waste under 260.33,EPA previously estimated that 10 petitions will be submitted on an annual basis for that variance (see U.S. EPA,Supporting Statement for EPA Information CollectionRequest Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007). In addition, EPA’s review of hazardous waste de-listings underRCRA found that, on average, 45 petitions were submitted per year between 1980 and 1999 for de-listings (see U.S. EPA,RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting: The First20 Years, June 2002). Based on these values, theannualone-time respondent costs for the petition process would be approximately $0.7 million to $3.2 million.14Exhibit 2 - Estimated Agency Burden and CostHours and Costs per RespondentTotal Hours and CostsINFORMATIONCOLLECTIONACTIVITYLeg.$94/HrMgr.$73/HrTech.$47/HrCler.$26/HrRespon.HoursLaborCost1Capital/StartupCostO & MCostTotal CostperRespondentNumber ofRespondentsTotalHoursTotalCostPETITION PROCESS (one-time burden and cost)Affected Facilities 86.9 76.3 532.6 61.2 757.0 $40,2732$0.0 $0.0 $40,273 168 127,174 $6.8million1Hourly Wages:Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupationalearnings tables: United States, December 2007– January 2009 (average reference dateJuly 2008),Table 3 Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly, andannual earnings and mean weekly and annual hours, accessed athttp://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009.Benefits Percentage:U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, September 10, 2009. Derivedfrom percent of total compensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in Table 2.Overhead Percentage:U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final RuleAmendments To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions Of the RCRADefinition Of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1.2Petition Process Costs:U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and RulemakingPetitions (Renewal), December 2007.The costs obtained from this source were notstated in 2008 dollars.They were inflated using the Bureau of LaborStatistics May 2008 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and GDP price deflators.3Uncertainty Regarding Number of Respondents for the Petition Process:As described in previous sections of thisdocument, EPA assumes that facilities potentiallyaffected by the proposed CISWI rule and the proposed major source Boilers Rule will submit petitions to EPA for a non-waste determination if they burn materialsconsidered to be a solid waste under the proposed rule and if thematerial is burned outside the control of the generator. Based on these conditions, the Agency estimatesthat 168 facilities will submit petitions. In reality, the number of petitions that will be submitted is uncertain and dependent on several factors that EPA is unable toassess (e.g., the operational characteristics of individual facilities). Therefore, as a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated the costs of the petition process based onpetition submission information for other petition processes established under RCRA. Based on data for the variance from classification as solid waste under 260.33,EPA previously estimated that 10 petitions will be submitted on an annual basis for that variance (see U.S. EPA,Supporting Statement for EPA Information CollectionRequest Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007). In addition, EPA’s review of hazardous waste de-listings underRCRA found that, on average, 45 petitions were submitted per year between 1980 and 1999 for de-listings (see U.S. EPA,RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting: The First20 Years, June 2002). Based on these values, theannualone-time Agency costs for the petition process would be approximately $0.4 million to $1.8 million.15Exhibit 3Estimated Average Burden per Respondent (hours)Regulated Entities EPABurden for one-time activities 11 to 703 0 to 757Petition Process (one-time burden) 702 757Rule Familiarization (one-time burden) 1 0Notes:Burden for one-time activities presented as a range for regulated entities and EPA because the burden will depend on whether aregulated entity files a petition for nonwaste determination.