Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0017-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-04-07T04:00Z

1
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
entitled
"
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
for
Chlorinated
Aliphatics
Production
Wastes,"
ICR
Number
1924.01.

1(
b)
Short
Characterization
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
amending
the
regulations
for
hazardous
waste
management
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
by
listing
as
hazardous
two
wastes
(
K174
and
K175)
generated
during
the
production
of
chlorinated
aliphatics.
This
action
is
taken
under
the
authority
of
RCRA
section
3001(
b)(
1),
which
authorizes
EPA
to
list
wastes
as
hazardous,
and
section
3001(
e)(
2),
which
directs
EPA
to
make
a
decision
whether
to
list
as
hazardous
the
various
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastes.
EPA
is
promulgating
a
conditional
listing
for
one
of
the
wastes,
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
ethylene
dichloride
and/
or
vinyl
chloride
monomer
(
EDC/
VCM)
(
K174).
Under
the
conditional
listing
approach,
the
waste
will
qualify
as
a
listed
hazardous
waste
unless
it
is
managed
according
to
the
conditions
specified
in
the
listing
description.
EPA
is
listing
another
waste,
wastewater
treatment
sludges
generated
from
the
production
of
vinyl
chloride
monomer
using
mercuric
chloride
catalyst
in
an
acetylene­
based
process
(
VCM­
A)
(
K175),
as
hazardous
in
accordance
with
the
Agency's
traditional
listing
approach,
i.
e.,
listing
without
conditions.
Under
the
final
rule,
generators
and
subsequent
handlers
must
manage
and
dispose
of
the
listed
chlorinated
aliphatic
wastes
in
accordance
with
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations.

In
Sections
1
through
5
of
this
ICR,
EPA
presents
a
comprehensive
description
of
the
new
information
collection
requirements
resulting
from
the
listing
of
these
two
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
wastes.
In
Section
6,
EPA
estimates
the
total
annual
burden
and
cost
to
respondents
and
government
associated
with
these
new
paperwork
requirements.
In
addition,
EPA
estimates
in
Section
6(
d)
the
total
annual
burden
and
costs
to
generators
and
subsequent
handlers
of
these
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
wastes
in
complying
with
existing
RCRA
information
collection
requirements
that
apply
to
newly
listed
hazardous
wastes.
In
this
same
Section
6(
d),
EPA
also
presents
estimates
of
the
combined
burden
and
cost
for
both
new
and
existing
paperwork
requirements.
When
this
ICR
is
approved
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
EPA
will
move
the
burden
and
cost
associated
with
the
existing
paperwork
requirements
from
this
ICR
to
each
of
the
five
existing
ICRs
that
are
affected
by
the
new
listings.

In
the
following
paragraphs,
EPA
briefly
describes
the
new
information
collection
requirements
that
contained
in
the
final
rule.
2
Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
Under
40
CFR
261.32,
EPA
is
establishing
a
conditional
listing
for
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
ethylene
dichloride
and/
or
vinyl
chloride
monomer
(
including
sludges
that
result
from
the
treatment
of
commingled
ethylene
dichloride
and/
or
vinyl
chloride
monomer
process
wastewaters
and
other
wastewaters).
Under
the
conditional
listing,
the
wastewater
treatment
sludge
(
K174)
is
a
listed
hazardous
waste
unless
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
i)
the
sludges
are
disposed
of
in
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
D
landfill
licensed
or
permitted
by
the
state
or
federal
government;
(
ii)
the
sludges
are
not
otherwise
placed
on
the
land
prior
to
final
disposal;
and
(
iii)
the
generator
maintains
documentation
demonstrating
that
the
waste
was
either
disposed
of
in
an
on­
site
landfill
or
consigned
to
a
transporter
or
disposal
facility
that
provided
a
written
commitment
to
dispose
of
the
waste
in
an
off­
site
landfill.
Respondents
in
any
action
brought
to
enforce
the
requirements
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
must,
upon
a
showing
by
the
government
that
the
respondent
managed
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
vinyl
chloride
monomer
and/
or
ethylene
dichloride,
demonstrate
that
they
meet
the
terms
of
the
exclusion
set
forth
above.
In
doing
so,
they
must
provide
appropriate
documentation
(
e.
g.,
contracts
between
the
generator
and
the
landfill
owner/
operator,
invoices
documenting
delivery
of
waste
to
landfill)
that
the
terms
of
the
exclusion
were
met.

Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Waste
Under
section
268.7(
f),
owners/
operators
of
facilities
co­
disposing
of
wastes
with
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
must
maintain
records
available
for
inspection
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
EPA
is
listing
as
hazardous
these
two
wastes
(
K174
and
K175)
under
the
authority
of
sections
3001(
e)(
2)
and
3001(
b)(
1)
of
RCRA,
as
amended
by
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(
HSWA).
Section
3001(
e)(
2)
directs
EPA
to
make
a
determination
of
whether
or
not
to
list
under
section
3001(
b)(
1)
chlorinated
aliphatic
wastes,
among
other
wastes.
Under
this
authority,
EPA
examined
wastes
from
the
production
of
chlorinated
aliphatic
chemicals
(
e.
g.,
using
risk
assessment
tools)
and
is
listing
as
hazardous
two
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastes,
as
specified.
Further,
under
sections
2002
and
3007
of
RCRA,
EPA
is
establishing
information
collection
requirements
that
are
needed
to
ensure
that
the
listed
wastes
are
properly
managed
and
disposed
of.

Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
Under
the
conditional
listing
for
K174
sludge,
generators
whose
K174
sludge
is
managed
as
nonhazardous
waste
must
maintain
documentation
demonstrating
that
the
waste
was
either
3
disposed
of
in
an
on­
site
landfill
or
consigned
to
a
transporter
or
disposal
facility
that
provided
a
written
commitment
to
dispose
of
the
waste
in
an
off­
site
landfill.
In
developing
the
conditional
listing
for
K174
sludge,
the
Agency
modeled
risks
from
two
management
scenarios,
a
nonhazardous
municipal
landfill
and
a
land
treatment
unit.
The
risk
assessment
showed
that
K174
sludges
pose
significant
risks
when
managed
in
a
land
treatment
unit,
but
pose
no
significant
risks
when
managed
in
landfills.
At
least
one
generator
of
K174
currently
manages
K174
in
an
on­
site
land
treatment
unit.
Given
these
findings,
EPA
determined
that
it
is
essential,
to
ensure
that
K174
sludges
are
not
managed
in
a
manner
that
will
present
an
unacceptable
level
of
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
that
generators
keep
records
documenting
that
these
wastes
are
managed
in
a
manner
that
the
Agency
determined
is
safe.
Although
the
Agency
establishes
that
documentation
of
safe
management
of
K174
sludges
is
important,
it
is
not
EPA's
intent
to
impose
unnecessary
recordkeeping
burden
upon
generators.
Therefore,
EPA
is
establishing
a
flexible
recordkeeping
requirement.
Generators
of
K174
sludges
need
only
retain
on­
site
(
for
three
years)
records
documenting
that
previously
generated
K174
sludges
were
managed
in
an
on­
site
landfill
or
sent
for
off­
site
management
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state
and
any
records
establishing
continued
intent
to
dispose
of
K174
in
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state.
Such
records
may
take
the
form
of
normally
or
regularly
generated
business
documents
such
as
invoices,
shipping
papers,
manifests,
and
waste
hauler
or
disposal
facility
contracts.
EPA
is
not
requiring
that
generators
complete
a
separate
or
specific
form
or
that
generators
send
any
records
or
documentation
to
an
implementing
agency.
Generators
need
only
make
such
documents
available
at
the
facility
site.

Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Waste
Based
on
studies
of
the
VCM­
A
wastewater
treatment
sludges
(
K175)
and
the
solubility
of
the
mercury
in
this
waste,
EPA
concludes
that
the
stability
of
mercury
in
K175
treatment
sludge
is
dependent
upon
the
pH
of
both
the
waste
and
the
disposal
environment.
Mercury
in
the
waste
tends
to
be
mobilized
at
high
pH
levels.
To
insure
operational
stability
of
the
treatment
process
and
proper
long­
term
disposal,
EPA
is
establishing
two
conditions
as
part
of
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
(
LDR)
treatment
standards.
First,
the
waste
residue
generated,
if
in
mercuric
sulfide
form,
must
itself
be
below
pH
6.0.
EPA
therefore
requires
that
mercuric
sulfide
residues
of
this
waste
be
treated
to
attain
a
pH
of
less
than
or
equal
to
6.0.
In
addition,
if
K175
wastes
are
to
be
co­
disposed
in
a
landfill
with
other
wastes,
co­
disposal
is
restricted
to
wastes
with
similar
pH
(
i.
e.,
not
greater
than
6.0).
To
demonstrate
compliance
with
this
restriction,
disposal
facilities
co­
disposing
of
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
with
other
solid
or
hazardous
wastes
must
maintain
records
available
for
inspection
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed.
EPA
believes
this
recordkeeping
requirement
is
essential
for
the
disposal
facilities
to
demonstrate
(
and
for
EPA
on­
site
inspectors
to
confirm)
that
they
are
complying
with
the
pH
restriction.
4
2(
b)
Practical
Utility
and
Users
of
the
Data
In
the
following
paragraphs,
EPA
discusses
how
the
data
required
under
the
final
rule
will
be
used
and
identifies
the
primary
users.

Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
EPA
is
requiring
that
generators
whose
EDC/
VCM
wastewater
treatment
sludge
(
K174)
is
managed
as
nonhazardous
waste
under
the
conditional
listing
maintain
documentation
demonstrating
that
the
waste
was
disposed
of
in
compliance
with
the
conditions
specified
at
40
CFR
261.32.
Because
generators
will
not
need
to
submit
documentation
of
their
exemption
claims
to
the
Agency
before
managing
their
K174
sludge
as
nonhazardous,
EPA
will
not
have
any
documentation
in
its
possession
about
the
waste
generation
and
management
practices
employed
by
generators
of
nonhazardous
K174
sludges.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
the
recordkeeping
requirement
at
40
CFR
261.32
is
essential
for
the
Agency
to
evaluate
or
confirm
a
generator's
compliance
with
the
conditions
(
e.
g.,
during
an
on­
site
inspection).
In
addition,
respondents
in
any
action
brought
to
enforce
the
requirements
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
must,
upon
a
showing
by
the
government
that
the
respondent
managed
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
vinyl
chloride
monomer
and/
or
ethylene
dichloride,
demonstrate
that
they
meet
the
terms
of
the
exclusion
set
forth
above.
In
doing
so,
they
must
provide
appropriate
documentation
(
e.
g.,
contracts
between
the
generator
and
the
landfill
owner/
operator,
invoices
documenting
delivery
of
waste
to
landfill)
that
the
terms
of
the
exclusion
were
met.
EPA
believes
that
generators
already
keep
the
required
information
on
site
as
a
part
of
standard
business
practices;
and
hence,
they
would
not
incur
any
incremental
burden
from
this
requirement.

Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Waste
EPA
is
requiring
that,
if
the
K175
wastes
are
to
be
co­
disposed
in
a
landfill
with
other
wastes,
co­
disposal
will
be
restricted
to
wastes
with
similar
pH
(
i.
e.,
not
greater
than
6.0).
Under
section
268.7(
f),
facilities
co­
disposing
of
wastes
with
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
must
maintain
records
available
for
inspection
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed.
This
information
will
be
essential
to
the
disposal
facility
in
demonstrating
their
compliance
with
the
land
disposal
restriction.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
None
of
the
new
information
required
by
the
rule
is
duplicative
with
any
information
required
by
the
existing
RCRA
regulations.
Under
the
conditional
listing
for
K174,
EPA
is
establishing
conditions
that
will
relieve
facilities
of
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
as
specified.
5
3(
b)
Public
Notice
EPA
published
the
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
and
solicited
public
comments.
To
assist
the
public
in
commenting
on
the
proposal,
EPA
raised
a
number
of
issues
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
and
asked
for
the
public
to
comment
on
them.
At
the
end
of
the
comment
period,
EPA
reviewed
and
responded
to
the
comments
received
and
took
the
comments
into
consideration
when
finalizing
the
final
rule.
A
summary
of
the
major
comments
received
and
the
Agency's
responses
is
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
A
copy
of
all
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
proposed
rule
and
the
full
Agency
responses
are
provided
in
Response
to
Public
Comments,
Final
Listing
Determination
for
Chlorinated
Aliphatics
Production
Wastes.

3(
c)
Consultations
EPA
consulted
stakeholders
in
developing
the
rule.
In
1992,
EPA
distributed
a
detailed
RCRA
Section
3007
survey
to
chlorinated
aliphatic
manufacturing
facilities.
The
purpose
of
the
survey
was
to
gather
information
on
the
wastes
generated
and
the
waste
management
practices
used
by
this
industry
necessary
to
support
the
listing
determinations.
The
questionnaire
covered
topics
such
as
chlorinated
aliphatic
product
information,
facility
and
unit
process
flow
diagrams,
process
descriptions,
residual
generation
and
residual
management
profiles.

The
Agency
distributed
the
survey
to
57
facilities
and/
or
corporations
in
1991
identified
as
potential
chlorinated
aliphatics
manufacturers
from
the
most
recent
information
available
at
the
time.
Of
the
57
surveys
distributed,
completed
surveys
were
received
from
27
facilities.
These
facilities
were
owned
by
20
companies
that
reported
that
they
had
manufactured
chlorinated
aliphatics
in
1991.
The
remaining
30
facilities
notified
EPA
that
they
had
either
stopped
operations
or
did
not
manufacture
chlorinated
aliphatic
products.
In
1991,
EPA
undertook
an
effort
to
update
the
previous
survey
results.
As
a
result
of
these
updates,
the
Agency
determined
that
two
chlorinated
aliphatics
facilities
had
closed
and
two
additional
facilities
manufacture
de
minimis
quantities
of
chlorinated
aliphatics.
Therefore,
the
Agency
determined
that
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
manufacturing
industry
consists
of
23
facilities
owned
by
19
corporations.

EPA
also
conducted
an
exhaustive
engineering
review
of
the
submitted
surveys
for
accuracy
and
completeness.
Data
from
the
survey
responses
was
then
entered
into
a
data
base
known
as
the
Chlorinated
Aliphatics
Industry
Studies
Data
Base
(
ISDB).
EPA
conducted
quality
assurance
reviews
of
the
ISDB
to
identify
any
inappropriate
entries
and
missing
data
links.
The
exhaustive
engineering
review
of
each
facility's
response
resulted
in
follow­
up
letters
and/
or
telephone
calls
to
facility
representatives
seeking
clarifications,
corrections,
and
additional
data
where
needed.
The
responses
to
these
requests
for
clarification,
along
with
additional
information
gathered
during
engineering
site
visits
and
familiarization
and
record
sampling
activities
were
entered
into
the
data
base.
6
In
1996,
EPA
conducted
a
review
of
data
collected
previously,
and
re­
contacted
facility
representatives
to
verify
the
status
of
chlorinated
aliphatics
manufacturing
operations.
In
June
of
1997,
the
Agency
sent
requests
for
updated
data
(
for
calendar
year
1996)
regarding
wastes
generated
to
each
facility.
EPA
processed
the
data
received
from
this
request
in
the
same
manner
as
the
original
RCRA
surveys,
and
entered
the
new
information
into
the
ISDB.
Between
1993
and
1996,
two
chlorinated
aliphatics
manufacturers
ceased
operations,
resulting
in
a
universe
of
23
chlorinated
aliphatics
manufacturing
facilities
owned
and
operated
by
19
different
companies.
Each
of
the
23
current
facilities
manufacturing
chlorinated
aliphatics
generates
at
least
one
waste
stream
identified
in
the
consent
decree.
All
23
facilities
generate
at
least
one
wastewater
residual,
while
12
facilities
reported
that
they
generate
wastewater
treatment
sludges.

EPA
used
information
collected
in
response
to
the
RCRA
3007
questionnaires
in
compiling
this
ICR
for
the
listing
determination
for
residuals
generated
by
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
processes.
However,
in
compiling
the
information
provided
in
this
document
and
in
estimating
the
burden
hours
and
costs
associated
with
the
new
requirements,
EPA
did
not
conduct
additional
consultations
with
potential
respondents.

A
proposed
ICR
was
published
in
conjunction
with
the
proposed
rule
and
the
public,
including
potential
respondents,
had
the
opportunity
to
provide
comment
and
input
on
the
assumptions
and
cost
estimates
provided
in
the
proposed
ICR.
Any
information
provided
to
EPA,
or
OMB,
in
response
to
the
proposed
ICR,
and/
or
the
Economics
Background
Document
developed
for
the
proposed
rule,
was
reviewed
by
the
Agency
in
developing
this
ICR
for
the
final
rule.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
carefully
considered
the
burden
imposed
upon
the
regulated
community
by
this
rule.
EPA
is
confident
that
those
activities
required
of
respondents
are
necessary,
and
to
the
extent
possible,
the
Agency
attempted
to
minimize
the
burden
imposed.
EPA
believes
strongly
that,
if
the
minimum
information
collection
requirements
of
the
rule
are
not
met,
neither
the
generators
nor
EPA
can
ensure
that
hazardous
wastes
are
being
properly
managed,
and
do
not
pose
a
serious
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
adheres
to
the
guidelines
stated
in
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
OMB's
implementing
regulations,
OMB's
Information
Collection
Review
Handbook,
and
other
applicable
OMB
guidance.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
Section
3007(
b)
of
RCRA
and
40
CFR
Part
2,
Subpart
B,
which
defines
EPA's
general
policy
on
public
disclosure
of
information,
contain
provisions
for
confidentiality.
However,
the
7
Agency
does
not
anticipate
that
businesses
will
assert
a
claim
of
confidentiality
covering
all
or
part
of
the
Notification
of
Regulated
Waste
Activity.
If
such
a
claim
were
asserted,
EPA
must
and
will
treat
the
information
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
cited
above.
EPA
also
will
assure
that
this
information
collection
complies
with
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
and
OMB
Circular
108.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
questions
of
a
sensitive
nature
are
included
in
the
information
collection
requirements.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents
and
NAICS
Codes
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
associated
with
industries
most
likely
affected
by
the
information
collection
requirements
covered
under
this
ICR
are
described
below:

NAICS
NAICS
Description
211111
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Extraction
212300
31332
Nonmetallic
Mineral
Mining
Fabric
Coating
Mills
(
pt)
32411
Petroleum
Refineries
325000
32511
Chemical
Manufacturing
Petrochemical
Manufacturing
(
pt)
325181
Alkalies
and
Chlorine
Manufacturing
325211
Plastics
Material
and
Resin
Manufacturing
32551
Paint
and
Coating
Manufacturing
(
pt)

4(
b)
Information
Requested
Under
40
CFR
261.32,
EPA
is
listing
as
hazardous
two
wastes
generated
from
the
production
of
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
EDC/
VCM
and
from
the
production
of
VCM­
A
(
K174
and
K175).
EPA
is
establishing
a
conditional
listing
for
K174,
under
which
the
waste
will
qualify
as
listed
hazardous
waste
unless
certain
conditions
are
met,
as
specified.
EPA
is
listing
K175
using
its
traditional
listing
approach
(
i.
e.,
a
listing
without
conditions).
In
the
following
paragraphs,
EPA
describes
the
new
information
collection
requirements
for
these
two
wastes.
8
Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
Under
40
CFR
261.32,
EPA
is
establishing
a
conditional
listing
for
wastewater
treatment
sludges
from
the
production
of
ethylene
dichloride
and/
or
vinyl
chloride
monomer
(
including
sludges
that
result
from
the
treatment
of
commingled
ethylene
dichloride
and/
or
vinyl
chloride
monomer
wastewaters
and
other
wastewaters).
Under
the
conditional
listing,
EDC/
VCM
wastewater
treatment
sludges
(
K174)
will
be
a
listed
hazardous
waste
unless
the
sludges
meet
the
following
conditions:
(
i)
they
are
disposed
of
in
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
licensed
or
permitted
by
the
state
or
federal
government;
(
ii)
they
are
not
otherwise
placed
on
the
land
prior
to
final
disposal;
and
(
iii)
the
generator
maintains
documentation
demonstrating
that
the
waste
was
either
disposed
of
in
an
on­
site
landfill
or
consigned
to
a
transporter
or
disposal
facility
that
provided
a
written
commitment
to
dispose
of
the
waste
in
an
off­
site
landfill.

(
i)
Data
Item:

Documentation
demonstrating
that
waste
was
either
disposed
of
in
an
on­
site
landfill
or
consigned
to
a
transporter
or
disposal
facility
that
provided
written
commitment
to
dispose
of
the
waste
in
an
off­
site
landfill.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activity:

Generators
whose
K174
sludge
is
managed
and
disposed
of
under
the
conditional
listing
as
nonhazardous
waste
must
keep
documentation
as
specified
in
40
CFR
261.32.

Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Waste
Under
40
CFR
268.7(
f),
the
owner/
operator
of
a
facility
co­
disposing
wastes
with
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
must
maintain
records
available
for
inspection
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed.

(
i)
Data
Item:

Records
of
the
pH
of
wastes
co­
disposed
with
K175.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activity:

The
owner/
operators
of
disposal
facilities
co­
disposing
wastes
with
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
must
maintain
records
available
for
inspection
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed,
as
required
under
40
CFR
268.7(
f).
9
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
There
are
no
Agency
activities
associated
with
the
new
requirements
for
generators
and/
or
other
handlers
of
K174
and
K175
wastes.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
All
of
the
information
collected
under
the
listings
is
maintained
on
site
at
the
generator's
or
disposer's
facility.
There
are
no
Agency
collection
activities
associated
with
the
new
requirements
for
generators
and/
or
other
handlers
of
K174
and
K175
wastes.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
EPA
attempted
to
incorporate
flexibility
into
the
requirements
to
relieve
both
large
and
small
generators
and
owner/
operators
of
portions
of
the
RCRA
regulations,
where
appropriate
(
e.
g.,
conditional
listing
for
K174
sludge).
EPA
also
kept
the
requirements
as
streamlined
as
possible
for
both
large
and
small
entities,
thereby
further
reducing
their
burden
under
the
rule
(
e.
g.,
self­
implementing
procedures
for
K174
conditional
listing).

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
listings
do
not
include
any
schedule
for
facilities
to
submit
or
for
the
Agency
to
collect
information.
Generators
managing
their
K174
sludge
as
nonhazardous
must
keep
specified
records
on
site
(
e.
g.,
documentation
demonstrating
that
the
waste
was
either
disposed
of
in
an
onsite
landfill
or
consigned
to
a
transporter
or
disposal
facility
that
provided
a
written
commitment
to
dispose
of
the
waste
in
an
off­
site
landfill).
Facilities
co­
disposing
wastes
with
wastes
identified
as
hazardous
waste
K175
must
maintain
records
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
codisposed

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
In
Exhibit
1,
EPA
estimates
the
respondent
burden
associated
with
the
new
paperwork
requirements
that
result
from
the
listing
of
two
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
wastes
as
RCRA
hazardous
wastes.
Specifically,
EPA
estimates
the
number
of
legal,
managerial,
technical
and
clerical
labor
hours
required
to
complete
new
paperwork
requirements.
EPA
provides
these
hour
estimates
for
each
individual
information
collection
activity.
10
As
shown
in
Exhibit
1,
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
all
activities
covered
in
the
ICR
is
approximately
six
hours
per
year.

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
annual
respondent
cost
associated
with
the
new
paperwork
requirements
is
approximately
$
445.
This
cost
includes
annual
labor,
capital,
and
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
to
be
incurred
by
respondents
affected
by
the
information
collection
requirements
covered
in
this
ICR.
Specific
data
and/
or
assumptions
used
in
developing
these
costs
are
described
below.

Labor
Costs
For
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
estimates
an
average
hourly
respondent
labor
cost
of
$
102
for
legal
staff,
$
73
for
managerial
staff,
$
53
for
technical
staff,
and
$
27
for
clerical
staff.
These
labor
rates
were
taken
from
approved
EPA
ICR
Number
801
(
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System,
October
22,
1999).

The
average
hourly
respondent
labor
cost
rates
and
the
burden
hours
presented
in
Exhibit
1
are
used
to
estimate
the
respondent
costs
associated
with
all
of
the
information
collection
activities
covered
in
this
ICR.
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
labor
cost
for
conducting
respondent
activities
covered
in
the
ICR
is
$
445
per
year.

Capital
Costs
Capital
costs
usually
include
any
produced
physical
good
needed
to
provide
the
needed
information,
such
as
machinery,
computers,
and
other
equipment.
The
only
capital
associated
with
the
paperwork
requirements
of
this
rule
is
file
cabinets.
However,
EPA
believes
that
respondents
are
already
keeping
records
under
40
CFR
261.32
for
the
K174
sludge
(
e.
g.,
contracts
between
generators
and
landfills
or
invoices)
as
part
of
their
routine
business
practice.
With
regard
to
40
CFR
268.7(
f),
EPA
expects
that
owners/
operators
of
facilities
co­
disposing
of
wastes
with
K175
sludge
are
already
keeping
records
of
the
wastes'
pH
under
existing
RCRA
requirements.
Thus,
EPA
does
not
expect
respondents
to
incur
capital
costs
associated
with
the
purchase
of
file
cabinets
under
this
rule.

Operations
&
Maintenance
Costs
O&
M
costs
are
those
costs
associated
with
a
paperwork
requirement
incurred
continually
over
the
life
of
the
ICR.
They
are
defined
by
the
PRA
as
"
the
recurring
dollar
amount
of
costs
associated
with
O&
M
or
purchasing
services."
The
only
activities
conducted
under
the
rule
include
recordkeeping
(
e.
g.,
of
contractual
agreements
and
invoices).
Hence,
EPA
does
not
believe
respondents
would
incur
the
O&
M
costs
described
above.
[
Note:
Respondents'
O&
M
costs
under
the
existing
RCRA
requirements
are
addressed
in
Exhibit
2,
as
appropriate.]
11
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
As
stated
earlier,
there
are
no
Agency
activities
associated
with
the
new
requirements
for
generators
and/
or
handlers
of
K174
and
K175
wastes.
Thus,
there
is
no
Agency
burden
or
cost
associated
with
this
rule.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
estimates
that
13
facilities
are
currently
generating
K174
or
K175
sludge.
Table
1
presents
these
13
facilities'
pre­
rule
waste
management
practices
for
K174
and
K175.
The
table
also
presents
EPA's
assumptions
regarding
their
likely
waste
management
practices
for
K174
and
K175
post­
rule.
These
universe
assumptions
are
further
described
in
the
following
paragraphs
in
regard
to
the
respondent
activities
taken
under
the
rule.

Table
1
EPA
Assumptions
for
K174
and
K175
Sludge
Management
Practices:
Pre­
Rule
and
Post­
Rule
Pre­
Rule
Practices
Post­
Rule
Practices
K174
Sludge
Ten
facilities
generate
and
send
their
K174
sludge
to
a
Subtitle
C
or
D
landfill
These
ten
facilities
are
expected
to
continue
to
send
their
K174
sludge
under
the
conditional
listing
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state
One
facility
receives
wastewater
from
an
adjacent
company
via
pipeline
and
generates
the
K174
sludge
in
its
surface
impoundment
Two
approaches
are
possible
for
managing
the
company's
waste
post­
rule:

(
1)
The
company
initially
generating
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastewater
may
opt
to
manage
the
wastewater
on
site
and
send
the
K174
sludge
under
the
conditional
listing
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state;
or
(
2)
The
company
initially
generating
the
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastewater
may
opt
to
send
the
wastewaters
to
a
POTW,
avoiding
the
generator
standards
altogether
Table
1
(
continued)
EPA
Assumptions
for
K174
and
K175
Sludge
Management
Practices:
Pre­
Rule
and
Post­
Rule
12
Pre­
Rule
Practices
Post­
Rule
Practices
One
facility
generates
and
manages
its
K174
sludge
using
land
treatment
This
facility
is
expected
to
cease
land
treatment
and
send
its
K174
sludge
under
the
conditional
listing
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state
K175
Sludge
One
facility
generates
K175
sludge.
Although
this
facility
has
determined
that
the
sludge
is
non­
hazardous,
the
facility
sends
the
sludge
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
This
facility
is
expected
to
send
its
K175
sludge
to
a
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
for
stabilization
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
LDR
standards
prior
to
Subtitle
C
disposal
Reading
the
Regulations
EPA
estimates
that
12
facilities
are
currently
generating
K174
sludge.
One
of
these
12
facilities
is
not
a
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
facility,
but
receives
wastewater
from
an
adjacent
chlorinated
aliphatics
facility
and
subsequently
generates
and
manages
the
resulting
K174
sludge.
Under
the
rule,
EPA
expects
all
13
facilities
(
i.
e.,
the
12
facilities
currently
generating
the
K174
sludge
and
the
company
sending
its
sludge
to
an
adjacent
facility)
to
read
the
regulations
once
over
the
life
of
the
ICR.
EPA
also
estimates
that
one
facility
generates
K175
sludge
and
will
read
the
rule.
Thus,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
1,
EPA
expects
that
14
facilities
will
read
the
applicable
regulations
once
during
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
[
Note
that
Exhibit
1
presents
annual
burden
and
costs
over
the
three­
year
effective
life
of
the
ICR.
The
exhibit
presents
the
burden
and
cost
of
one­
time
activities
by
dividing
the
total
number
of
respondents
by
three
(
14
facilities
/
3
years
=
approximately
5
facilities
per
year).]

As
shown
in
Exhibit
1,
EPA
assumes
that
each
respondent
will
incur
a
burden
of
0.25
hours
of
legal
labor,
0.5
hours
of
managerial
labor,
and
0.5
hours
of
technical
labor
annually
to
read
the
regulations.
These
1.25
hours
of
labor
burden
result
in
a
total
annual
labor
cost
per
respondent
of
$
88.50.
The
Agency
estimates
that
it
will
not
take
facility
personnel
a
significant
amount
of
time
to
read
and
become
familiar
with
the
regulations
because
these
facilities
already
are
regulated
under
RCRA
and
are
familiar
with
existing
generator
requirements.
The
total
estimated
annual
costs
associated
with
the
burden
of
reading
the
regulations
for
all
14
respondents
(
or
5
facilities
per
year
over
the
three­
year
period
of
the
ICR)
is
approximately
$
443
(
i.
e.,
5
x
$
88.50).
13
EXHIBIT
1
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
LISTINGS
FOR
CHLORINATED
ALIPHATICS
PRODUCTION
WASTES
(
K174
AND
K175)

ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Hours
and
Costs
per
Respondent
Total
Hours
and
Costs
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITY
Legal
$
102.00/
hr
Manager
$
73.00/
hr
Technical
$
53.00/
hr
Clerical
$
27.00/
hr
Respondent.

Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/

Year
Capital/

Startup
Costs
O&
M
Costs
Number
of
Respondents
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/

Year
Reading
the
regulations
Read
the
regulations
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.00
1.25
$
88.50
$
0.00
$
0.00
5
6.25
$
442.50
Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
(
261.32)

Keep
documentation
on
site,
as
specified
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
4
0.00
$
0.00
Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Waste
(
268.7(
f))

Maintain
records
of
pH
of
wastes
co­
disposed
with
K175
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
$
2.70
$
0.00
$
0.00
1
0.10
$
2.70
Total
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
6.35
$
445.20
14
1
Under
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
1)(
ii),
any
mixture
of
domestic
sewage
and
other
wastes
that
passes
through
a
sewer
system
to
a
POTW
for
treatment
is
not
considered
a
solid
waste
and
thus
is
excluded
from
RCRA.
Therefore,
under
this
waste
management
approach,
neither
the
company
generating
the
wastewater
nor
the
POTW
are
subject
to
RCRA
requirements
for
the
K174
sludge.

2
Note
that
EPA
does
not
expect
either
the
receiving
facility
or
the
adjacent
company
to
incur
any
RCRA
paperwork
costs
for
the
K174
sludge
under
any
of
the
possible
post­
rule
waste
management
practices
described
in
Table
1,
i.
e.,
in
shipping
the
K174
sludge
under
the
conditional
listing
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state
or
in
shipping
the
wastewater
to
a
POTW.
Documentation
of
Disposal
of
K174
Sludge
As
shown
in
Table
1,
11
facilities
are
expected
to
send
their
K174
sludge
under
the
conditional
listing
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state.
In
addition,
EPA
expects
that
the
facility
receiving
off­
site
wastewater
for
the
adjacent
company
will
discontinue
this
practice;
the
company
initially
generating
the
wastewater
is
expected
to
send
the
wastewater
to
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW).
1,2
EPA
estimates
that
all
11
facilities
generating
K174
sludge
will
dispose
of
their
sludge
in
Subtitle
C
landfill
or
a
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
permitted
or
licensed
by
a
state
and
keep
the
documentation
on
site
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
under
40
CFR
261.32.
However,
EPA
expects
that
none
of
these
facilities
will
incur
any
burden
or
cost
under
the
recordkeeping
requirement,
since
the
required
documentation
is
assumed
to
be
readily
available
contracts
and/
or
invoices.
[
Note
that
the
exhibit
presents
annual
burden
and
costs
over
the
three­
year
effective
life
of
the
ICR.
The
exhibit
presents
the
burden
and
cost
of
one­
time
activities
by
dividing
the
total
number
of
respondents
by
three
(
11
facilities
/
3
years
=
approximately
4
facilities
per
year).]
As
shown
in
Exhibit
1,
EPA
estimates
the
total
burden
for
the
11
generators
(
or
4
facilities
per
year
over
a
three­
year
period)
to
comply
with
the
requirement
to
keep
documentation
of
proper
management
of
K174
to
be
$
0.

Recordkeeping
for
Co­
Disposal
of
K175
Sludge
Only
one
facility
currently
generates
K175
sludge.
This
generator
previously
notified
EPA
of
its
waste
generation
activities
and
has
an
EPA
identification
number.
EPA
expects
that
no
new
generators
will
adopt
the
process
that
generates
this
waste.

EPA
believes
the
facility's
K175
sludge
might
meet
the
LDR
treatment
standard
as
generated.
However,
for
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
made
the
conservative
assumption
that
the
facility
will
send
its
K175
sludge
to
a
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
for
stabilization
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
LDR
standards
prior
to
disposal.
The
treatment
facility
is
expected
to
send
the
stabilized
waste
to
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfill.
EPA
assumes
the
landfill
will
co­
15
dispose
other
hazardous
wastes
with
the
K175
sludge
and
retain
records
that
will
be
available
for
inspection,
of
the
pH
of
the
wastes
so
co­
disposed,
as
required
under
40
CFR
268.7(
f).

Exhibit
1
reflects
the
assumption
that
the
one
disposal
facility
receiving
the
K175
waste
will
keep
records
as
required
under
section
268.7(
f).
EPA
expects
the
landfill
to
incur
nominal
burden
under
this
requirement
(
0.10
hour
of
clerical
labor
at
$
27.00/
hr),
since
the
Agency
believes
information
on
the
pH
of
wastes
co­
disposed
with
K175
will
be
kept
on
site
under
existing
RCRA
requirements
(
e.
g.,
40
CFR
264.73(
b)(
3)
or
265.76(
b)(
3)).
[
Note:
Refer
to
Exhibit
2
for
the
annual
burden
and
cost
to
facilities
in
complying
with
the
existing
RCRA
information
collection
requirements
for
the
K175
waste.]
As
shown
in
Exhibit
1,
EPA
estimates
the
total
annual
burden
for
the
landfill
to
comply
with
the
requirement
to
keep
records
on
the
pH
of
the
wastes
codisposed
with
K175
to
be
approximately
$
3.

Total
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
In
Exhibit
2,
EPA
presents
a
summary
of
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
costs
associated
both
new
and
existing
paperwork
requirements.
The
new
paperwork
requirements
result
from
the
listing
of
two
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
waste.
The
specific
information
collection
activities
of
the
new
paperwork
requirements
are
described
throughout
this
ICR,
and
the
total
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
associated
with
them
are
calculated
in
Exhibit
1,
summarized
in
Exhibit
2,
and
briefly
described
below.
The
existing
paperwork
requirements
are
those
that
are
contained
in
the
current
RCRA
regulations
and
that
apply
to
generators
and
handlers
of
the
two,
newly
listed
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
wastes.
These
existing
requirements,
the
existing
ICRs
with
which
they
are
associated,
and
the
total
annual
burden
and
cost
associated
with
them
also
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
2
and
briefly
described
below.

New
Paperwork
Requirements
Using
the
per
respondent
burden
estimated
in
section
6(
a),
the
per
respondent
costs
estimated
in
section
6(
b),
and
the
respondent
universe
estimated
in
this
section,
Exhibit
1
illustrates
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
costs
associated
with
all
of
the
new
information
collection
activities
associated
with
the
newly
listed
wastes.
As
noted
above,
this
exhibit
presents
the
annual
burden
and
costs
over
the
three­
year
effective
life
of
the
ICR.
The
exhibit
calculates
the
burden
and
cost
of
one­
time
activities
by
dividing
the
total
number
of
respondents
by
three
(
e.
g.,
11
facilities
generating
K174
/
3
years
=
approximately
4
facilities
per
year).
In
Exhibit
2,
EPA
summarizes
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
cost
of
these
new
paperwork
requirements
derived
in
Exhibit
1.

Existing
Paperwork
Requirements
In
addition
to
the
new
paperwork
requirements
from
these
listings,
EPA
also
estimated
the
incremental
burden
and
costs
that
generators
of
the
listed
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastes
and
16
EXHIBIT
2
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
LISTINGS
FOR
CHLORINATED
ALIPHATICS
PRODUCTION
WASTES
(
K174
AND
K175)

TOTAL
ANNUAL
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
SUMMARY
(
INCLUDING
INCREMENTAL
INCREASE
IN
PAPERWORK
BURDEN
FOR
EXISTING
EPA
ICRs)*

ICR
Name
ICR
Number
Total
Hours/
Year
Total
Labor
Cost/
Year
Total
Annual
Capital
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
Total
Cost
New
Paperwork
Requirements
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
for
Chlorinated
Aliphatics
Production
Wastes
1924
6
$
445
$
0
$
0
$
445
Existing
Paperwork
Requirements
Manifest
801
9
$
463
$
0
$
3
$
466
Biennial
Report
976
1
$
29
$
0
$
0.06
$
29
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
1442
0.40
$
14
$
0
$
0.37
$
15
General
Facility
Standards
1571
61
$
3,384
$
0
$
0
$
3,384
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
1573
16
$
904
$
0
$
12
$
916
Subtotal
(
Existing
Paperwork
Requirements)
N/
A
87
$
4,794
$
0
$
15
$
4,809
Total
(
New
and
Existing
Paperwork
Requirements
Combined)
N/
A
93
$
5,239
$
0
$
15
$
5,254
*
Exhibit
includes
rounding.
17
subsequent
hazardous
waste
handlers
would
incur
in
complying
with
existing
RCRA
information
collection
requirements
for
their
K174
and
K175
listed
waste.
In
Exhibit
2,
EPA
presents
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
cost
summary
for
the
existing
paperwork
requirements
broken
out
by
the
five
existing
EPA
ICRs
that
are
affected
by
the
new
listings.
In
developing
Exhibit
2,
EPA
reviewed
each
of
the
affected
ICRs
to
identify
the
existing
information
collection
activities
that
will
be
undertaken
by
generators
and
handlers
of
listed
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastes,
calculated
the
associated
burden
and
costs,
and
presented
the
totals
in
the
exhibit.

The
total
costs
in
Exhibit
2
are
broken
down
into
labor,
capital,
and
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs.
In
Section
6(
b),
EPA
presents
a
discussion
of
the
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
new
paperwork
requirements
from
the
rule.
Below,
EPA
presents
a
brief
discussion
of
the
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
each
of
the
five
existing
ICRs
that
are
affected
by
the
K174
and
K175
listings.

For
the
Manifest
ICR
(
ICR
No.
801),
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
sending
and
returning
copies
of
the
manifest
forms
and
submitting
manifest­
related
reports.
For
the
Biennial
Report
ICR
(
ICR
No.
976),
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
submitting
the
Hazardous
Waste
report
and
maintaining
copies
of
Waste
Generation
and
Management
(
GM)
and
Waste
Received
from
Off­
Site
(
WR)
Forms.
For
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
ICR
(
ICR
No.
1442),
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
transmittal
and
recordkeeping
of
one­
time
LDR
notifications
and
certifications.
For
the
General
Facility
Standards
ICR
(
ICR
No.
1571),
there
are
no
O&
M
costs.
For
the
Part
B
ICR
(
ICR
No.
1573),
O&
M
costs
are
associated
with
submitting
the
notification
under
§
270.42(
a)(
i),
submitting
the
written
notification
to
the
public
and
appropriate
governments,
and
submitting
and
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
Class
1
modification
request.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Respondent
Tally
In
Exhibit
2,
EPA
presents
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
and
cost
for
both
new
and
existing
paperwork
associated
with
the
listings
of
two
chlorinated
aliphatic
production
wastes.
As
described
specifically
in
Section
6(
d)
above,
these
new
and
existing
paperwork
requirements
apply
to
generators
and
handlers
of
these
newly
listed
hazardous
wastes.
As
shown
in
Exhibit
2,
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
these
new
paperwork
requirements
is
six
hours,
at
an
annual
cost
of
approximately
$
445.
As
also
shown
in
Exhibit
2,
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
these
existing
paperwork
requirements,
which
are
associated
with
five
existing
EPA
ICRs,
is
87
hours,
at
an
annual
cost
of
approximately
$
4,809.
In
the
same
Exhibit
2,
EPA
then
combines
the
burden
and
cost
for
both
new
and
existing
paperwork
associated
with
the
listings
and
estimates
the
total
annual
respondent
burden
for
all
information
collection
activities
at
93
hours
and
an
annual
cost
of
approximately
$
5,254.

The
bottom
line
respondent
burden
over
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR
is
279
hours,
at
a
total
cost
of
approximately
$
15,765.
18
Agency
Tally
There
are
no
Agency
activities
associated
with
the
new
requirements
for
generators
and/
or
handlers
of
K174
and
K175
wastes.
Thus,
there
is
no
Agency
burden
or
cost
associated
with
this
rule.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
In
Burden
In
establishing
the
K174
and
K175
listings,
EPA
added
some
new
information
collection
requirements
to
ensure
that
the
wastes
are
managed
and
disposed
of
in
a
manner
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
listings
also
will
subject
the
newly
listed
chlorinated
aliphatics
wastes
to
the
existing
RCRA
information
collection
requirements
and,
as
such,
reflect
an
adjustment
in
the
respondent
universe
for
these
requirements
in
the
five
affected
EPA
ICRs.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
There
is
no
public
reporting
burden
from
the
new
information
collection
requirements
in
the
listings.
The
recordkeeping
burden
from
the
new
requirements
is
estimated
to
be
about
25
to
30
minutes
per
respondent
per
year.
This
burden
includes
time
for
reading
the
regulations
(
once
per
respondent
over
three
years)
and
maintaining
documentation
on
site.

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
1.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.