Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0031-0369
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-04T04:00Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tank
systems
must
meet
either
of
two
conditions
in
order
to
be
inspected
weekly:
(
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
(
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur;
they
will
be
promptly
identified,
and
that
they
will
be
promptly
remediated.
Owners
and
operators
choosing
one
of
these
options,
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies,
must
document
the
option
selected
in
their
operating
record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The
remainder
of
the
document
is
organized
as
follows:

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

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

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

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

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

C
Chapter
7
Lists
the
references
used
in
the
analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tank
systems
must
meet
either
of
two
conditions
in
order
to
be
inspected
weekly:
(
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
(
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur;
they
will
be
promptly
identified,
and
that
they
will
be
promptly
remediated.
Owners
and
operators
choosing
one
of
these
options,
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies,
must
document
the
option
selected
in
their
operating
record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tank
systems
must
meet
either
of
two
conditions
in
order
to
be
inspected
weekly:
(
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
(
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur;
they
will
be
promptly
identified,
and
that
they
will
be
promptly
remediated.
Owners
and
operators
choosing
one
of
these
options,
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies,
must
document
the
option
selected
in
their
operating
record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

°
Erik
Talley,
Chair
of
the
American
Chemical
Society.

°
Mr.
Ken
Shoemake
of
Perma
Fix
Environmental
Services.

°
Ms.
Chris
Hammonds
of
C­
MAC
Environmental
Group.

°
Ms.
Tita
LaGrimas
of
Pollution
Control
Industries.

°
Mr.
John
Stiller
of
Northland
Environmental.

°
Mr.
Mike
Karp
of
ENSCO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subparts
B,
D,
E,
and
H).

Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,

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

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

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

Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,

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

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

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

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

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

Tank
systems
must
meet
either
of
two
conditions
in
order
to
be
inspected
weekly:
(
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
(
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur;
they
will
be
promptly
identified,
and
that
they
will
be
promptly
remediated.
Owners
and
operators
choosing
one
of
these
options,
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies,
must
document
the
option
selected
in
their
operating
record.

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

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

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

EPA
estimated
this
baseline
burden
based
on
the
following
assumptions.

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

8
Ibid.

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

Qualified,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

along
with
the
requirements
under
section
265.193(
i).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$
5,284,208
High:

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

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

mailing
costs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
6
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Certification
of
containment
building
265.1101(
c)(
2)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Inspections
265.1101(
c)(
4)
In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
EPA
ICR
Number
959.11
­
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Detection
Monitoring
Program
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
and
maintain
ground­
water
monitoring
264.98(
d)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
this
change
would
have.
Facilities
could
experience
different
levels
of
flexibility
under
the
new
provisions.
It
is
difficult
and
highly
uncertain
to
predict
this
flexibility
in
advance
of
rule
promulgation.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Detection
Monitoring
Program
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
ground­
water
sampling
264.98(
g)(
2),

(
g)(
3)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
this
change
would
have.
Facilities
could
experience
different
levels
of
flexibility
under
the
new
provisions.
It
is
difficult
and
highly
uncertain
to
predict
this
flexibility
in
advance
of
rule
promulgation.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Compliance
Monitoring
Program
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
groundwater
sampling
264.99(
f),
(
g)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
this
change
would
have.
Facilities
could
experience
different
levels
of
flexibility
under
the
new
provisions.
It
is
difficult
and
highly
uncertain
to
predict
this
flexibility
in
advance
of
rule
promulgation.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Corrective
Action
Program
­
Corrective
Action
Program
Report
264.100(
g)
Hourly
burden
and
O&
M
costs
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report
semi­
annually.
286
1,716
$
874,946
Ground­
water
Monitoring:

Applicability
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­

Ground­
water
Quality
Assessment
Program
265.90(
d)(
1)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Ground­
water
Monitoring:

Applicability
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­

Ground­
water
Quality
Assessment
Report
265.90(
d)(
3)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
2
48
$
13,593
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
7
Ground­
Water
Monitoring:

Preparation,
Evaluation,

and
Response
­

Concentration
data
265.93(
c)(
1)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
4
16
$
964
Ground­
Water
Monitoring:

Preparation,
Evaluation,

and
Response
­

Groundwater
Quality
Assessment
Program
265.93(
d)(
2)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
4
192
$
10,636
Ground­
Water
Monitoring:

Preparation,
Evaluation,

and
Response
­

Ground­
water
Quality
Assessment
Report
265.93(
d)(
5),
(
e)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
4
96
$
27,186
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities):

Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)
This
ICR
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
elimination
of
section
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii),
as
well
as
the
new
requirement
to
retain
records
under
new
section
265.94(
b).

Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
217
1,736
$
104,160
EPA
ICR
Number
1189.14
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
Standards
and
Criteria
for
Variances
from
Classification
as
a
Solid
Waste
­
Submit
report
on
industry­
wide
prevalence
of
the
material
production
process
260.31(
b)(
2)
This
ICR
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
elimination
of
section
260.31(
b)(
2).
Note
that
the
information
previously
required
under
section
260.31(
b)(
2)
is
now
an
optional
submittal
under
section
260.31(
b)(
7).
The
ICR
has
not
been
revised
to
reflect
this
optional
submittal
because
of
uncertainty
in
predicting
industry
behavior
under
this
optional
provision.
0
0
$
0
Exclusions
­
Submit
one­
time
notification
for
recycled
wood­
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood­
preserving
solutions
261.4(
a)(
9)(
iii)

(
E)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
20
202.50
$
11,050.95
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
8
Exclusions
­
Submit
report
estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
261.4(
f)(
9)
Hourly
burden
has
been
reduced
by
10%
to
reflect
the
elimination
of
current
year
information
under
section
261.4(
f)(
9).
2
28.80
$
1,661.58
EPA
ICR
Number
1361.09
­
Incinerators,
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
General
Inspection
Requirements
264.15(
b)(
4)
In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
New
regulatory
language
added
by
the
rule
New
paragraph
264.15(
b)(
5)
The
rule
would
allow
facilities
under
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
to
apply
for
reduced
inspection
of
their
management
units.
This
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Personnel
training
requirements
­
Establish
training
program
in
emergency
response
procedures
264.16(
a)(
3)
The
ICR
does
not
cover
this
requirement
because
it
is
not
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
ICR
requirements.
In
any
case,
minimal
burden
impact
is
expected
from
this
change.
Therefore,

the
ICR
was
not
modified
to
reflect
the
rule
change.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Emergency
Procedures
­

Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
section
264.56(
h)
{
which
requires
that
no
waste
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
will
be
treated/
stored/
disposed
until
cleanup
is
completed,

and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again}
before
resuming
operations
264.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Operating
Record
­

Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
264.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
9
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure
­
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
264.143(
i)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure
Care
­

Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
264.145(
i)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Liability
Requirements
­

Period
of
coverage
264.147(
e)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Personnel
training
requirements
­
Establish
training
program
for
emergency
response
265.16(
a)(
3)
The
ICR
does
not
cover
this
requirement
because
it
is
not
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
ICR
requirements.
In
any
case,
minimal
burden
impact
is
expected
from
this
change.
Therefore,

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

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

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

and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again}
before
resuming
operations
265.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Operating
Record
­

Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
265.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
10
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure
­
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
265.143(
h)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure
Care
­

Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
265.145(
h)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Liability
Requirements
­

Period
of
coverage
265.147(
e)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Permit
Standards
for
Burners
(
Permitted):

Operating
Requirements
­

Recordkeeping
266.102(
e)(
10)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Interim
Status
Standards
for
Burners
(
Interim
Status)
­
Periodic
recertifications
of
compliance
266.103(
d)
Hourly
burden
and
O&
M
costs
reduced
by
50%
because
re­
certifications
are
done
less
frequently.
16
212
$
84,376.08
Interim
Status
Standards
for
Burners
(
Interim
Status)
­
Recordkeeping
266.103(
k)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
EPA
ICR
Number
1442.18
­
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
LDR
Generator
Requirements
­
Generator
waste
determination
268.7(
a)(
1)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements
­
Submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA
268.7(
b)(
6)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
0.38
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).

Number
of
new/
updated
notifications
and
certifications
reduced
from
3,225
to
18.
18
8.10
$
362
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
11
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­

Submit
one­
time
notification
268.9(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­

Submit
certification
268.9(
d)
Hourly
burden
for
clerical
staff
reduced
by
0.25
hours
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
0.38
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).
584
262.80
$
11,738
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.07
­
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
Personnel
training
requirements
­
Establish
training
program
in
emergency
response
procedures
264.16(
a)(
3)
The
ICR
does
not
cover
this
requirement
because
it
is
not
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
ICR
requirements.
In
any
case,
minimal
burden
impact
is
expected
from
this
change.
Therefore,

the
ICR
was
not
modified
to
reflect
the
rule
change.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Emergency
Procedures
­

Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
section
264.56(
h)
{
which
requires
that
no
waste
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
will
be
treated/
stored/
disposed
until
cleanup
is
completed,

and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again}
before
resuming
operations
264.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Operating
Record
­

Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
264.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
264.174
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
12
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
­
Assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)

(
2)
This
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
the
requirements
under
section
264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)(
2)

along
with
the
requirements
under
section
264.193(
i).
In
particular,
the
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
the
recordkeeping
of
assessment
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
a
leak
detection
test
or
developing
a
schedule
and
procedure
for
an
assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Incinerators
(
Permitted)
­

Record
retention
time
264.347(
d)
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­

Inspections
264.574(
a)
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
General
Inspection
Requirements
265.15(
b)(
4)
In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
New
regulatory
language
added
by
the
rule
New
paragraph
265.15(
b)(
5)
The
rule
would
allow
facilities
under
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
to
apply
for
reduced
inspection
of
their
management
units.
This
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Personnel
training
requirements
­
Establish
training
program
for
emergency
response
265.16(
a)(
3)
The
ICR
does
not
cover
this
requirement
because
it
is
not
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
ICR
requirements.
In
any
case,
minimal
burden
impact
is
expected
from
this
change.
Therefore,

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

Coordination
with
other
plans
265.52(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
notably
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
13
Emergency
Procedures
­

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

and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again}
before
resuming
operations
265.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Operating
Record
­

Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
265.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure
­
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
265.143(
h)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure
Care
­

Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
265.145(
h)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Liability
Requirements
­

Period
of
coverage
265.147(
e)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
265.174
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency..
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
14
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
­
Assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
265.193(
h)(
5)(
i)

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

along
with
the
requirements
under
section
265.193(
i).
In
particular,
the
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
the
recordkeeping
of
assessment
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
a
leak
detection
test
or
developing
a
schedule
and
procedure
for
an
assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

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

Certification
of
drip
pad
265.444(
a)
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data.
The
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.

Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
EPA
ICR
Number
1572.06
­
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
264.113(
e)(
5)
Hourly
burden
and
O&
M
costs
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report
semi­
annually.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
264.174
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections.
The
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity
264.191(
a),

(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
­
Assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)

(
2)
This
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
the
requirements
under
section
264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)(
2)

along
with
the
requirements
under
section
264.193(
i).
In
particular,
the
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
a
leak
detection
test
or
developing
a
schedule
and
procedure
for
an
assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system.
The
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
assessment
data
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.

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

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
15
Inspection
of
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted
Facilities)
264.195
There
is
no
burden
effect
in
this
ICR
from
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
under
section
264.195,
as
amended
by
the
rule.
This
reflects
EPA's
belief
that,
in
general,
TSDFs
will
continue
full
daily
inspections,
regardless
of
the
weekly
requirement.
EPA
believes
that
TSDFs
are
generally
proactive
toward
their
property
(
e.
g.,
land
and
facilities),
largely
because
of
corrective
action
requirements
at
permit
renewal
and
closure.
They
also
are
knowledgeable
of
and
responsible
toward
their
equipment
because
it
is
central
to
their
primary
business
operations
(
i.
e.,
waste
management).
In
addition,
EPA
has
found
that
TSDFs
have
standard
operating
procedures
and
designated
waste
management
staff
to
operate
and
maintain
their
waste
management
units.
It
might
not
be
practicable
or
cost­
effective
for
them
to
revise
these
plans
in
order
to
relax
their
inspections.
In
this
regard,
even
if
a
TSDF
reduced
its
inspection
frequency,
it
would
incur
incremental
burden
for
modifying
its
permit,
revising
its
plans,
and
reallocating
staff.
This
incremental
burden
would
partially
if
not
completely
offset
the
savings,
especially
in
the
near
term.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Response
to
Leaks
or
Spills
and
Disposition
of
Leaking
or
Unfit­
for­
Use
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­

Certification
of
major
repairs
264.196(
f)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
Recordkeeping
will
be
conducted
under
new
section
264.73(
b)(
19).
O&
M
costs
under
264.196(
f)
decrease
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,

mailing
costs).

In
regard
to
the
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified,
registered
professional
engineer,
the
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered."
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated
for
this
change.
5
2.50
$
78.15
Landfills:
Special
Requirements
for
Bulk
and
Containerized
Liquids
264.314
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Incinerators
(
Permitted):

Performance
Standards
­

Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,

F023,
F026,
F027
264.343(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
notification
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­

Submit
written
plan,

as­
built
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,

repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
264.571(
a),
(
b),

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

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
16
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­

Obtain
a
certification
for
drip
pads
264.573(
a)(
4)(
ii)

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

Inspections
264.574(
a)
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections.
The
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.

Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)
­

Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region
264.1036
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Alternative
Standards
for
Valves
in
Gas/
Vapor
Service
or
in
Light
Liquid
Service:
Percentage
of
Valves
Allowed
to
Leak
­

Alternative
standard
notification
264.1061(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Alternative
Standards
for
Valves
in
Gas/
Vapor
Service
or
in
Light
Liquid
Service:
Percentage
of
Valves
Allowed
to
Leak
­

Work
practice
standard
notification
264.1061(
d)
Eliminated
this
requirement.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Alternative
Standards
for
Valves
in
Gas/
Vapor
Service
or
in
Light
Liquid
Service:
Skip
Period
Leak
Detection
and
Repair
­

Alternative
work
practice
notification
264.1062(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
17
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
semi­
annual
report
with
record
of
equipment,

shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events
264.1065(
a)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
0
0
$
0
Containment
Buildings:

Applicability
­
Notification
264.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Certification
of
containment
building
264.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Inspections
264.1101(
c)(
4)
In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Closure
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
265.113(
e)(
5)
Hourly
burden
and
O&
M
costs
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report
semi­
annually.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
265.174
This
ICR
covers
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
the
inspections.
The
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
inspection
data
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity
265.191(
a),

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

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
18
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
Assessment
of
tank
installation
265.192(
b)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­

Secondary
containment
of
tank
systems
265.193(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
­
Assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
265.193(
h)(
5)(
i)

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

along
with
the
requirements
under
section
265.193(
i).
In
particular,
the
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
a
leak
detection
test
or
developing
a
schedule
and
procedure
for
an
assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system.
The
burden
associated
with
recordkeeping
of
assessment
data
is
covered
under
EPA
ICR
Number
1571.

Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Inspection
of
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
265.195
There
is
no
burden
effect
in
this
ICR
from
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
under
section
265.195,
as
amended
by
the
rule.
This
reflects
EPA's
belief
that,
in
general,
TSDFs
will
continue
full
daily
inspections,
regardless
of
the
weekly
requirement.
EPA
believes
that
TSDFs
are
generally
proactive
toward
their
property
(
e.
g.,
land
and
facilities),
largely
because
of
corrective
action
requirements
at
permitting
and
closure.
They
also
are
knowledgeable
of
and
responsible
toward
their
equipment
because
it
is
central
to
their
primary
business
operations
(
i.
e.,
waste
management).
In
addition,
EPA
has
found
that
TSDFs
have
standard
operating
procedures
and
designated
waste
management
staff
to
operate
and
maintain
their
waste
management
units.
It
might
not
be
practicable
or
cost­
effective
for
them
to
revise
these
plans
in
order
to
relax
their
inspections.
In
this
regard,
even
if
a
TSDF
reduced
its
inspection
frequency,
it
would
incur
incremental
burden
for
modifying
its
permit,
revising
its
plans,
and
reallocating
staff.
This
incremental
burden
would
partially
if
not
completely
offset
the
savings,
especially
in
the
near
term.

In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Response
to
Leaks
or
Spills
and
Disposition
of
Leaking
or
Unfit­
for­
Use
Tank
Systems
­

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

mailing
costs).

In
regard
to
the
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified,
registered
professional
engineer,
the
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered."
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated
for
this
change.
19
9.50
$
296.97
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
19
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
265.221(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA
265.223(
a)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA
265.259(
a)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
of
Land
Treatment
­

Closure
certification
265.280(
e)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Landfills
(
Interim
Status)
265.301(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)

­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA
265.303(
a)
Hourly
burden
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
$
3.95
(
i.
e.,
mailing
costs).

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids
265.314
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Assessment
of
Existing
Drip
Pad
Integrity
(
Interim
Status)
265.441(
a),
(
b),

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

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

Certification
of
drip
pad
265.444(
a)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
20
Alternative
Standards
for
Valves
in
Gas/
Vapor
Service
or
in
Light
Liquid
Service:
Percentage
of
Valves
Allowed
to
Leak
­

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

Work
practice
standard
notification
265.1061(
d)
Eliminated
this
requirement.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR.
Thus,
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Alternative
Standards
for
Valves
in
Gas/
Vapor
Service
or
in
Light
Liquid
Service:
Skip
Period
Leak
Detection
and
Repair
­

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

Applicability
­
Notification
265.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Certification
of
containment
building
265.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Operating
Standards
for
Containment
Buildings
­
Inspections
265.1101(
c)(
4)
In
regard
to
National
Performance
Track
Program,
this
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency..
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
21
EPA
ICR
Number
1573.10
­
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
General
Inspection
Requirements
264.15(
b)(
4)
The
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
this
requirement
under
section
270.14(
b).

It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
this
change
would
have.
It
would
depend
in
part
on
the
number
of
facilities
under
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
These
data
were
not
readily
available
for
analysis.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
estimated.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
New
regulatory
language
added
by
the
rule
New
paragraph
264.15(
b)(
5)
The
rule
would
allow
facilities
under
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
to
apply
for
reduced
inspection
of
their
management
units.
This
analysis
assumes
that
no
facilities
in
the
program
will
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Contingency
Plan
­

Coordination
with
other
plans
264.52(
b)
The
ICR
examines
the
burden
associated
with
this
requirement
under
section
270.14(
b).

Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
notably
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure
­
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
264.143(
i)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure
Care
­

Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
264.145(
i)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Liability
Requirements
­

Period
of
coverage
264.147(
e)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
Assessment
of
structural
integrity
and
acceptability
for
storing
and
treating
waste
264.192(
a)
See
assumptions
for
section
270.16(
a).
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Existing
(
i.
e.,
Pre­
Rule)

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

Regulatory
Citation
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Revised
Estimates
a
Number
of
Respondents
Hourly
Burden
Cost
Burden
D­
22
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
Assessment
of
tank
installation
264.192(
b)
See
assumptions
for
section
270.16(
a).
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Containment
and
Detection
of
Releases
from
Tank
Systems
­
Secondary
containment
of
tank
systems
264.193(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­

Installation
of
liners
and
leachate
collection
systems
after
January
29,
1992
264.251(
c)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Contents
of
Part
B:

General
Requirements
­

Certification
270.14(
a)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Part
B
Requirements
for
Tank
Systems
­
Submit
written
assessment
of
structural
integrity
270.16(
a)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Part
B
Special
Information
Requirements
for
Drip
Pads
­
Certification
270.26(
c)(
15)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
EPA
ICR
Number
1775.03
­
Hazardous
Remediation
Waste
Management
Requirements
(
HWIR­
Media)

Staging
Piles
­
Designation
264.554(
c)(
2)
Burden
not
affected.
The
rule
merely
deletes
the
word
"
registered"
from
the
term
"
registered
professional
engineer."
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
a
Exhibit
contains
rounding
error.