![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 18, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 32859-32868]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn99-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6363-8]
RIN 2050-AE50
Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To meet the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) plans to reduce the recordkeeping and
reporting burden on states, the public and regulated community
associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
Paperwork Reduction Act establishes a federal government-wide goal to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on the states, the public
and regulated community by 40% from a starting date of 1995 to
September 2001. We are working to reduce burden while protecting human
health and the environment.
For this Notice of Data Availability (NODA), we reviewed our
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and their burden on the
states, public, and regulated community; reviewed burden reduction
ideas developed by other EPA offices and the regulated community;
developed additional burden reduction ideas; and sought input from EPA
offices and states. In today's NODA, we are soliciting comment on our
ideas and our background documents. These background documents are
available on the Internet and in the RCRA Information Center. We plan
to issue a proposed rulemaking to implement many of these ideas.
DATES: Written comments must be received by September 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Hand
deliveries should be made to the RCRA Information Center at the
Arlington, VA address below. Comments also may be submitted
electronically via the Internet to: rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Comments in an electronic format also should reference docket
number F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as
an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
Commenters should not submit any confidential business information
(CBI) electronically. Commenters must submit an original and two copies
of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public comments and technical background information are available
for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located on the first
floor of Crystal Gateway I, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is
recommended that an appointment be made by calling (703) 603-9230. The
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from the docket at no charge.
Additional copies are $0.15 per page. The docket index and some
technical background information materials are also available
electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS NOTICE CALL: The RCRA Hotline. Callers
within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810 or TDD
703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance callers may call 1-800-
424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672. The RCRA Hotline operates weekdays,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time. Send written requests to: RCRA
Information Center (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Background information materials for this Notice are available on
the Internet. Follow the instructions below to access these materials
electronically:
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically to
paper form and place them in the official record. The official record
also will include all comments submitted in writing.
Acronyms
ICR: Information Collection Request
LDR: Land Disposal Restrictions
LQG: Large Quantity Generator
NODA: Notice of Data Availability
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSW: Office of Solid Waste
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory
TSDF: Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility
Index of Notice
Glossary of Terms
I. Background and Purpose of NODA
A. What is RCRA?
B. What is recordkeeping and reporting burden?
C. Why do we ask you to recordkeep and report?
D. What are our goals for reducing recordkeeping and reporting
burden?
E. How is burden estimated?
F. What is an ICR?
G. What is the baseline for OSW paperwork requirements?
H. What is the OSW Burden Reduction Initiative?
I. What is in today's NODA?
J. What we would like you to do.
K. Information on burden reduction ideas not in the NODA.
L. What happens after we receive comments?
II. Major Burden Reduction Ideas
A. Should we allow facilities to submit all information and keep
records of all information electronically?
B. Should we reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
generators and TSDFs?
C. Should we lengthen the periods between facility self-
inspections?
D. Should we change RCRA personnel training requirements?
E. Should we streamline the LDR paperwork requirements?
F. Should we reduce the amount of data collected by the Biennial
Report?
III. Other Burden Reduction Efforts Taking Place in RCRA
A. Changes to the hazardous waste manifest.
B. Integrating the Biennial Report with the Toxics Release
Inventory
C. Other RCRA Initiatives
IV. Other Agency Burden Reduction Initiatives
V. Technical Background Information
A. Is there a description of other burden reduction ideas not in
today's NODA?
[[Page 32860]]
B. What are the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements?
C. What are the accounting changes for EPA Information
Collection Requests?
D. What are EPA burden hours?
Glossary of Terms:
Boilers/industrial furnaces: An enclosed device using controlled
flame combustion to accomplish recovery of materials or energy.
Characteristic waste: A solid waste that is a hazardous waste
because it exhibits one or more of the following hazardous
characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
EPA identification number: A number assigned by EPA to each
generator; transporter; and treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Identification numbers are facility-specific, except for the
transporter who has one for all his/her operations.
Facility: All land and structures used for treating, storing, or
disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several
treatment, storage, or disposal units.
Generator: Any person whose process produces a hazardous waste in
excess of 100 kg/month or acutely hazardous waste in excess of 1 kg/
month, or whose actions cause a hazardous waste to become subject to
regulation.
Groundwater: Water below the land surface.
Hazardous waste: Includes solid wastes that have not been excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste; have been listed as hazardous
wastes by EPA; exhibit one or more characteristics of hazardous waste;
or have been mixed with a hazardous waste.
Inspections: Owner/operators of facilities must inspect their
facilities for malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and
discharges which may cause of lead to releases of hazardous
constituents to the environment or a threat to human health.
Land disposal: Includes placement in a landfill, surface
impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt
dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or
concrete vault or bunker intended for disposal purposed.
Land Disposal Restrictions: Also known as the land ban, these
restrictions prohibit any land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes.
Land Disposal Restrictions establish treatment standards that must be
met prior to any land application of hazardous wastes.
Listed waste: A waste is a listed as hazardous based on the process
from which the waste was generated and/or the constituents found in the
waste.
Manifest: The paperwork that must accompany a shipment of hazardous
waste as it moves from the generator to the transporter and eventually
to the treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Notification form: A form that notifies regulators of hazardous
waste management activities at a facility.
Operator: The person responsible for the overall operation of a
facility.
Owner: The person who owns a facility.
RCRA: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted
to protect human health and the environment, and to conserve valuable
material and energy resources. The most important aspect of RCRA is the
establishment of standards for the management and tracking of waste
from generator to transporter to treatment, storage, and disposal.
Permit: Lays out the legally enforceable requirements that owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must comply with.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements: A generator, transporter,
or treatment, storage and disposal facility must keep all data relating
to hazardous waste management units. They must also file reports to
EPA, which become part of their operating record.
Solid waste: Any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other waste materials
not excluded by definition. Hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste.
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility: A facility that treats,
stores, and/or disposes of hazardous waste.
Treatment: Any method, technique, or process designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of a
hazardous waste to neutralize it or recover energy or material
resources from the waste, or to render the waste nonhazardous or less
hazardous.
Treatment standards: Standards that hazardous wastes must meet
prior to land disposal.
I. Background and Purpose of Today's NODA
A. What Is RCRA?
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a
program for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated,
through its treatment and storage, until its ultimate disposal. RCRA
also establishes a program for controlling nonhazardous industrial
solid waste and municipal solid waste by encouraging states to develop
comprehensive plans to manage these wastes, setting criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal
facilities, and prohibiting the open dumping of solid waste. RCRA is
implemented by EPA and the states.
EPA's regulations implementing RCRA are listed in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Within Title 40, the hazardous waste
regulations are listed in Parts 260 through 279. The solid waste
regulations are listed in Title 40, Parts 240 through 258. In this
NODA, we often give the location of where you can find specific
regulations as 40 CFR, with the specific part or parts listed afterward
(e.g., 40 CFR Part 264).
B. What Is Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden?
Recordkeeping and reporting burden includes information that EPA
requires or requests of you (the public, states, and regulated
community), and then is reported to us and/or kept as records by you.
C. Why Do We Ask You To Recordkeep and Report?
We need information to ensure that human health and the environment
are protected as required by RCRA. We can require that you provide us
with information and/or that you keep records of information under the
authority of RCRA. In addition, we sometimes ask you to submit
information through voluntary surveys, focus groups, and studies.
D. What Are Our Goals for Reducing Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden?
To meet the federal government-wide goal established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), we are taking steps to reduce
recordkeeping and reporting burden by 40 percent. Recordkeeping and
reporting burden includes not only the time spent submitting
information to us (writing a letter and putting it in the mail) or
keeping records (creating and maintaining a filing system), but also
the time it takes to develop the information (collecting data;
organizing, analyzing, and summarizing data; writing reports; or
filling out forms). Burden covers information that we require by
regulation and the information that we request you give us voluntarily.
The PRA establishes a government-wide goal of reducing the
paperwork burden to the public by 40 percent from the total amount of
paperwork required or requested from the public annually as of
September 30, 1995. The PRA allows us to reduce paperwork burden in
stages: 25 percent by September 30, 1998, an additional 5 percent by
September 30, 1999, another 5 percent
[[Page 32861]]
by September 30, 2000, and a final 5 percent by September 30, 2001.
E. How Is Burden Estimated?
We estimate the amount of time it takes you to respond to our
information requests as follows: First, we list all of the activities
you as state employees, members of the regulated community, or private
citizens undertake to collect, organize, or otherwise develop the
information; report the information; or keep it in your records. For
each activity, we then estimate the time it takes an average respondent
to complete the information request, taking into account differences
such as facility size or level of data complexity. Next, we verify
these estimates through consultations with a small number of
respondents. Finally, these hour estimates are multiplied by the number
of people or entities expected to complete the information collection.
The results of these analyses are published in Information Collection
Requests (ICRs).
F. What Is an ICR?
An Information Collection Request (ICR) is a document summarizing
our estimates of paperwork burden for an information collection. We
have to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
of the ICR before we can collect any information. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, you (state employees, members of the regulated
community, or private citizens) have an opportunity to comment on the
estimates in our ICRs prior to our submitting them to OMB for approval.
After a 60-day public comment period, we review and incorporate, where
appropriate, your comments into our estimates.
OMB generally approves ICRs for a three-year period. In order to
continue an information collection after this period, we must renew the
ICR with OMB. ICR renewals follow the procedures outlined above,
including consultations and public comment.
G. What Is the Baseline for OSW Paperwork Requirements and What
Progress Has Been Made to Date in Reducing It ?
On September 30, 1995, the paperwork burden baseline for the
regulations OSW implements was 12,600,000 hours. To meet the
government-wide goal, we would have to reduce this burden baseline by
5,040,000 hours to an annual total of 7,560,000 hours by September 30,
2001. As of October 1, 1998, we achieved burden reductions totaling
nearly 2,000,000 hours or 16 percent. A chart of all OSW burden hours
is available in the RCRA docket or on the Internet.
H. What Is the OSW Burden Reduction Initiative and What Have We Done to
Date?
The OSW Burden Reduction Initiative grew out of workshops and round
tables for reinventing the RCRA regulations, such as the Land Disposal
Roundtable we sponsored in July 1998. Over the last two years, we
reviewed all of the OSW reporting and recordkeeping requirements and
developed ideas for eliminating or streamlining them. After obtaining
input from within EPA and a limited number of state experts, we
developed today's NODA to seek broader input on the ideas. The goal of
the Burden Reduction Initiative is to reduce paperwork while
maintaining a protective OSW program.
I. What Is in Today's NODA?
In today's NODA, we present our major burden reduction ideas. We
also reference other smaller ideas, which are available in the RCRA
Docket and on the Internet. And, we mention other ongoing burden
reduction efforts so you can gain an understanding of our overall
burden reduction strategy.
If all of the burden reductions ideas presented in today's NODA and
the background documents were implemented, we would achieve burden
reductions that would allow us to meet our 40 percent goal. We estimate
these ideas add up to 3.3 million hours, which is about a 40% overall
reduction in burden. Note that this figure does not include savings
from accounting changes, which are discussed at the end of the NODA.
Also, in calculating this figure, we made sure that we were not double-
counting any burden reduction savings from the multiple ideas.
Some of the ideas presented today are controversial, and we may not
necessarily go forward with each idea in a rulemaking. However, we do
expect to go forward with many of them. As discussed throughout today's
NODA, your input will help us decide which areas are the best
candidates to pursue in a later rulemaking. Please note that today's
Notice does not change any existing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements--they remain effective and are enforceable.
J. What We Would Like You To Do
After reviewing today's NODA and the background information, we
would like you to comment on: the positive and negative impacts of the
burden reduction ideas; whether they would reduce burden as we have
estimated; and other ideas for reducing RCRA burden, both in areas
covered by this NODA and any others.
K. Information on Burden Reduction Ideas Not in the NODA
You can find on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction a document
entitled ``Burden Reduction Ideas'' which lists some additional burden
reduction ideas not in the NODA. This document is a chart that lists
each idea, its ICR number(s) and regulatory citation(s), its baseline
burden hour estimate, and an estimate of the burden savings that might
be achieved if it were implemented.
L. What Happens After We Receive Your Comments?
After reviewing comments received, we will issue a proposed
rulemaking to implement a number of these burden reduction ideas. We
will consider your comments and suggestions, and will probably do
supplemental analyses on some of the ideas. The proposed rulemaking
that follows this NODA will present more complete rationales for
changes we are considering to existing requirements.
II. Our Major Burden Reduction Ideas
For the ideas presented below, we summarize our existing policies
on the issue, discuss possible changes, and highlight areas you might
want to comment on. Comments are of course welcome on any and all
aspects of the discussion below.
A. Should We Allow Facilities To Submit All Information and Keep All
Records of Information Electronically?
Existing Policies for Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
EPA has been working to introduce electronic reporting and
recordkeeping into our programs. In the short term, our goal is to
eliminate the cost to industry and government of using paper to
transfer data and eliminate the errors and delays involved in
keystroking reports into databases. Our longer term goal is to use
electronic reporting as a tool for streamlining and automating the
exchanges of data among industry, environmental agencies, and the
public. To accomplish these goals, we are developing guidelines and
have convened workgroups to ensure that we develop consistent and
effective electronic reporting and recordkeeping programs across all
program offices.
In the RCRA program, we are exploring ways to increase electronic
reporting and recordkeeping. While we have no RCRA-wide policy on this
subject, we have made strides in some
[[Page 32862]]
areas. For example, on November 2, 1996, we wrote an interpretive
letter to the company Safety-Kleen saying that they can store
electronic image files of manifests instead of keeping paper copies. We
also recently initiated a pilot project to test the feasibility of
using Electronic Data Interchange and the Internet to automate
manifesting activities. In this pilot, users will prepare, transmit and
keep copies of a digitally signed electronic manifest. The pilot is
scheduled to be completed by September 1999 and will be evaluated by
EPA as part of a manifest revisions proposed rule. We are also heavily
promoting electronic reporting for the Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to Our Policies for Electronic Reporting and
Recordkeeping
We are evaluating whether to develop an across-the-board policy
whereby you could electronically report and keep records of RCRA-
required documents so long as you meet some conditions, such as
ensuring data integrity in storage and that the documents are readily
available during inspections. This would mean that you would not have
to keep paper copies of any RCRA records, unless you prefer to do so.
In some cases, this policy would mean that we would have to upgrade our
data management systems. We will not be able to do this immediately,
but over time we could move to a primarily electronic system for RCRA,
while maintaining paper capability for those parties who cannot or will
not go to electronic reporting.
Questions/Comments
We want comment on whether electronic reporting and recordkeeping
should be allowed across-the-board, or whether it should be limited to
specific areas. In addition, please comment on the enforceability of
electronic signatures (we especially want comment from state agencies
who would be implementing the requirements), the accessibility of
electronic records during inspections, and how easy it would be for
companies to submit electronically. Also comment on whether you would
see any burden or cost savings from electronic reporting and
recordkeeping.
In addition, please comment on whether the costs of automation such
as obtaining a computer, software, and on-line provider outweigh these
cost savings. Even though the electronic submissions would be
voluntary, we need to understand how many parties are likely to pursue
electronic submissions to help us decide what resources we should be
committing to this area.
B. Should EPA Reduce Reporting Requirements for Generators and
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)?
Existing Reporting Requirements
We receive more than 300 notifications, reports, certifications,
demonstrations, and plans from generators and TSDFs in order to show
compliance with the RCRA regulations, as well as applications for
extensions, permits, variances, and exemptions. Generators and TSDFs
must notify us of their regulated waste activities and TSDFs must
submit information such as ground-water quality reports, closure and
post-closure certifications, and Part A permit applications. These
reporting requirements are in 40 CFR Parts 262, 264, 265, 266, 268,
270.
Possible Changes to Reporting Requirements/Agency Analyses and Data
We are evaluating whether we should continue to require facilities
to submit all this information. We would still require facilities to
develop and maintain the required information. Rather than submitting
the required information to EPA, however, it would be kept on-site.
We believe that not requiring facilities to submit this information
will save them time and money. Receiving less information would also
reduce our data management and administrative burden. We have developed
a list of all of the reporting requirements that apply to generators
and TSDFs, and the burden for each of these activities. This list is
available in the RCRA Information Center and on the Internet at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction.
Please be aware that we believe some notices to be high priority
(to ensure compliance with regulations), and do not plan on eliminating
the requirement that they be sent to EPA. Below are some of the notices
we will keep:
<bullet> 40 CFR Parts 264.143, 145 and 265.143, 145 requirements
that facilities submit financial assurance information or updates of
financial assurance information. Allowing facilities to maintain this
information on site only rather than sending it to EPA will increase
the likelihood that facilities will not obtain adequate financial
assurance for closure or corrective action.
<bullet> 40 CFR Parts 262.12; 263.11; 264.11; 265.11; and 266.70
requirements that facilities notify us of their legal owner. This
information is needed to identify responsible parties in enforcement
cases.
<bullet> 40 CFR Part 264.12 requirement that TSDFs notify
generators that they have appropriate permits. Eliminating this
requirement would shift the burden of proof to the Agency when we
attempt to bring an action against a generator that ships waste to an
unpermitted TSDF.
<bullet> 40 CFR Parts 264.12; 265.12 transfer of ownership
requirements. These requirements help ensure that the buyer is fully
aware of its RCRA obligations and increases the likelihood that the new
owner will be in compliance with RCRA.
<bullet> 40 CFR Part 268.7(a) generator notification requirements.
This tracking requirement is essential for federal regulators to ensure
that the correct information is placed on file at the waste generating
facility and is provided to the receiving facility, and allows us to
monitor what happens to hazardous waste from generation to treatment.
<bullet> 40 CFR Part 268.7(b)(3)-(b)(4) treatment facility
notifications. This tracking requirement is essential for federal
regulators to ensure that the correct information is placed on file at
the facility and is provided to the waste disposal facility, and to
allow us to monitor what happens to hazardous waste.
<bullet> 40 CFR Part 268.9 characteristic waste notifications.
Maintaining this notice and supporting information is important because
once the waste has been decharacterized it can be land disposed in a
nonhazardous landfill. An inspector will not know where this waste was
sent for treatment or disposal without this notice because the
receiving facility is out of RCRA jurisdiction. Therefore, this
information is critical to maintain the RCRA cradle-to-grave tracking
process.
<bullet> 40 CFR part 264.1036--RCRA air regulations subpart AA
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
<bullet> 40 CFR part 264.1065--RCRA air regulations subpart BB
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
<bullet> 40 CFR part 264.1090--RCRA air regulations subpart CC
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
<bullet> 40 CFR Parts 262.12, 263.11, 264.11 notification of
regulated waste activity. This is a basic requirement to inform us of
who is generating and managing hazardous waste.
Questions/Comments
By identifying these high priority notices, we are asking whether
the remaining paperwork imposed by existing regulations has to be sent
to us.
[[Page 32863]]
The notices highlighted above are, in our opinion, necessary to
properly ensure compliance. The other nearly 300 notices, however, may
not be absolutely necessary, and simple recordkeeping onsite may
suffice. We recognize that opinions will vary on how we should decide
which notices to keep and thus welcome comments on a methodology for
deciding what to drop and what to keep.
We are also interested in learning what impact there may be on the
environment, human health, and worker health and safety if this
information were not required to be submitted to EPA. In addition, we
would like to know if this proposal would relieve the public and
regulated community of significant burden.
To help you evaluate which of these notices and other documents are
necessary to be submitted to us, we have developed some criteria, such
as notices necessary for:
<bullet> Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation: These are items
collected to measure the success of programs in protecting human health
and the environment. They could include corrective action reports.
<bullet> Hazardous Waste Program Implementation: This is
information collected to help us develop regulations and policies. This
could include the biennial report and assurances of financial
responsibility for corrective action.
<bullet> Enforcement: These items are necessary for the enforcement
of environmental regulations. For example, the requirement that
hazardous waste generators and transporters notify us of their legal
owner provides us with information needed to identify responsible
parties in enforcement cases.
<bullet> Required by statute: These are information items we must
collect according to the RCRA statute, such as the hazardous waste
reports under RCRA Section 3002.
C. Should We Lengthen the Periods Between Facility Self-Inspections?
Existing Self-Inspection Requirements
RCRA regulations require large quantity generators and treatment,
storage and disposal facilities to inspect their facilities to ensure
that they are operating in compliance with RCRA requirements. The
regulations include both facility-wide and specific types of unit and
equipment inspection standards. Some of RCRA's inspection requirements
specify a frequency with which inspections must be conducted. For
example, an owner of a container storage area must inspect it at least
weekly, while an owner of a tank must inspect it daily. You can find
RCRA's inspection requirements throughout the regulations, but mostly
in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
Inspections are a vital component of an effective regulatory
system. We also recognize that some facilities may have very good
facility management practices and might be able to inspect less
frequently without sacrificing human health and environmental
protection.
Possible Changes to the Inspection Requirements
We are evaluating whether to revise RCRA's inspection requirements
by lengthening the time between inspections. We believe that some
facilities might have controls in place that could let us reduce the
frequency of inspections; this could possibly be established on a case-
by-case basis. These special inspection schedules might be worked out
during facility permitting, and/or we might put a special variance in
the regulations under which we could allow less frequent inspections.
We are also considering a variable implementation schedule, where for
example, larger tank inspection frequency would remain the same, while
smaller tanks would be inspected less frequently. And, we are
considering a phased schedule where facility inspection might go from
daily to weekly to biweekly, if no problems arise.
Questions/Comments
We would like comment on whether we should lengthen any of RCRA's
inspection frequencies, on the extent to which such an action would
reduce burden, and whether this would impact human health and the
environment. Also, you might suggest mechanisms such as variances and
waivers that we could use to allow a less frequent schedule, and what
should be involved in such mechanisms, such as public input. If you are
opposed to the idea of lengthening inspection frequencies, please
explain your concerns.
D. Should We Change RCRA Personnel Training Requirements?
Existing RCRA Requirements for Personnel Training
RCRA regulations require large quantity generators (LQGs) and
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to train their
employees on how to perform their jobs in a way that ensures the
facility's compliance with RCRA requirements (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4)
for LQGs and 40 CFR 264.16 for TSDFs).
The training program must ensure that employees are able to respond
to emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures,
equipment, and systems, and must include introductory and refresher
courses and be taught by a qualified trainer. Employees must complete
the program within six months after being hired or assigned to a new
position at the facility. LQGs and TSDFs must keep updated information
on employees, job descriptions, and the type of training that facility
personnel have received. Training records on current personnel must be
kept until closure of the facility.
Possible Changes to RCRA Personnel Training Requirements
We are evaluating two alternatives for changing the RCRA personnel
training requirements. Alternative 1 would keep the requirements for
personnel training under RCRA the same. However, we would eliminate all
associated recordkeeping. Alternative 2 would eliminate the RCRA
personnel training requirements that we believe overlap with
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training
requirements.
Alternative 1: Eliminate Recordkeeping for RCRA Personnel Training.
We are evaluating eliminating all recordkeeping associated with
RCRA personnel training and replacing it with a one-time certification
that all employees have been properly trained. Under this approach, we
would maintain the Section 264.16(a)-(c) requirements and eliminate
paragraph (d), replacing it with the certification. We would like
comment on whether a certification would be sufficient to verify that
employees have received proper training.
Alternative 2: Replace RCRA Personnel Training Requirements that
overlap OSHA Training Requirements.
We believe that some RCRA personnel training requirements overlap
with OSHA's requirements for health and safety training (see 29 CFR
1910.120 for some of OSHA's training requirements). For example, both
regulatory programs require that facility personnel be trained in
emergency response.
We are evaluating whether to eliminate RCRA requirements that may
duplicate OSHA's. For requirements that overlap, we could just
reference the OSHA requirements, or simply eliminate the entire set of
RCRA requirements. We would work closely with OSHA if we did this. We
have prepared a document that is in the
[[Page 32864]]
RCRA Information Center and on the Internet which provides information
on what we believe to be overlapping requirements.
Questions/Comments
We would like comment on whether we should eliminate all
recordkeeping for RCRA personnel training, or all training and
recordkeeping that duplicates OSHA's. Please let us know if and where
you believe the RCRA and OSHA training programs are duplicative for
LQGs and TSDFs. In addition, please comment on whether the RCRA
regulations require training beyond the scope of OSHA's training and
whether their elimination would impact human health or the environment.
E. Should We Streamline the LDR Paperwork Requirements?
Existing LDR Paperwork Requirements
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) are a major component of the
RCRA program. In addition to establishing treatment standards for
hazardous waste prior to land disposal, Part 268 requires generators
and TSDFs to determine if their waste needs to be treated before land
disposal, and requires notices and/or certifications to be sent with
the waste shipments to TSDFs. Generators and TSDFs must keep records of
their waste determinations, notifications, certifications, and other
paperwork for three years.
The LDR paperwork requirements account for nearly one-third of all
the burden for the RCRA program. Since the passage of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, we have reduced LDR paperwork substantially--
particularly with the May 12, 1997 Land Disposal Restrictions rule.
Before this rule, generators and treaters that sent their hazardous
waste offsite had to send a notification with each shipment of waste.
This rule changed these requirements so that the notification need only
be sent with the initial waste shipment, so long as the waste and the
receiving facility remained unchanged. This paperwork change resulted
in a savings of 1,630,000 burden hours annually. We are now evaluating
the LDR paperwork requirements for even more burden reduction.
Based on our review of the LDR paperwork requirements, as well as
conversations with the regulated community, we believe that some of the
Part 268 requirements for waste determinations, notifications, and
certifications could be reduced or eliminated altogether. We have
summarized these requirements as they currently exist in the following
paragraphs:
Section 268.7(a) Generator Paperwork Requirements.
Hazardous waste generators must determine if their waste meets the
applicable LDR treatment standards. They may either test the waste or
use their knowledge of it to make the determination (268.7(a)(1)). If
the waste does not meet the applicable standards, the generator must
send a one-time notification to the treatment facility indicating this.
And, when the waste does meets the treatment standards, the generator
must also send a one-time certification with the initial shipment.
These one-time notifications and certifications must be placed in the
generator's files. No further notification is required, except if the
waste or receiving facility changes, in which case a new notification
must be sent and a copy placed in the generator's files (268.7(a)(2)-
(3)). Generators must keep copies of all waste determinations,
notifications and certifications for at least three years
(268.7(a)(8)).
Section 268.7(b) Treatment Facility Paperwork Requirements.
Treatment facilities must test their waste according to the
frequencies established in their waste analysis plans to determine
whether their waste complies with applicable LDR treatment standards
(268.7(b)(1)-(2)). In addition, treatment facilities must send a one-
time notice to the disposal facility that provides specified
information on the waste. The treatment facility must also send a one-
time certification to the disposal facility that the treatment
technology used was operated properly. No further notification or
certification is required, except if the waste or receiving facility
changes, in which case a new notification and certification must be
sent and a copy placed in the treatment facility's files (268.7(b)(3)-
(4)). Where a waste is a recyclable material used in a manner
constituting disposal (and meets other criteria), the treatment
facility/recycler need not notify the receiving facility. It still must
send a notice and certification with each shipment to EPA. It must also
keep records of who received the hazardous waste-derived product
(268.7(b)(6)).
Section 268.7(d) Paperwork Requirements for Hazardous Debris.
Generators or treatment facilities who claim that their hazardous
debris is excluded from the definition of a hazardous waste, such as
debris treated by a specified extraction or destruction technology,
must send a one-time notification to EPA and keep a copy in their
files. The notification must be updated under specified circumstances
such as if the waste is shipped to a different facility. In addition,
treatment facilities must certify compliance with the treatment
standards by keeping specified records such as inspections and, for
each shipment of treated debris, place a signed certification of
compliance in their files.
Section 268.9 Paperwork Requirements for Characteristic Waste.
Generators of characteristic hazardous wastes must determine the
underlying hazardous constituents (268.2(i)) in their characteristic
waste. They may either test the waste or use knowledge of it to make
the determination. (268.7(a)(1)). Generators or treatment facilities
who treat their characteristic hazardous wastes to meet the treatment
standards at 40 CFR Section 268.48 and render the waste non-hazardous
must place a one-time notification and certification in their files.
They must also send a copy to EPA. The generator or treatment facility
must update the notification and certification in their files if the
operation generating the waste changes and/or if the facility receiving
the waste changes. The generator or treatment facility must update EPA
on an annual basis if such changes occur.
Possible Changes to LDR Paperwork Requirements
We are evaluating the following changes to the LDR program:
Change 1: Eliminate 268.7(a)(1) Generator Waste Determinations.
We are assessing whether a separate waste determination under
268.7(a) is needed. Currently, generators are required to determine
whether they have a hazardous waste under section 262.11. And, treaters
are required to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under
section 264.13, which provides all the information required to comply
with Part 268. Under section 268.40, hazardous waste is prohibited from
land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the Table of
Treatment Standards (which requires knowledge of EPA hazardous waste
code, waste constituents, wastewater and nonwastewater classification,
and treatability group).
We believe that the section 262.11 waste determination, along with
the determinations required under sections 264.13 and 268.40, would be
sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized for
achieving compliance with the LDRs. In addition, we believe that a TSDF
may continue to use generator-supplied information, if available, to
meet 264.13 and 269.40 obligations, even if the waste determination
requirement under 268.7
[[Page 32865]]
is removed. Therefore, we are considering whether the 268.7(a) waste
determination should be eliminated.
Change 2: Eliminate 268.7(b)(6) Recycler Notifications and
Certifications.
We believe it may be unnecessary for treatment facilities or
recyclers to send these notifications and certifications to EPA, as
long as the information contained in them is kept in facility records.
We note that this kind of reporting relief is not new to the RCRA
program. RCRA regulations currently allow waste handlers making a claim
(or taking other action) to keep records on site and not submit them.
For example, under 261.2(f), a person can accumulate materials before
recycling without being subject to RCRA if it can be proved that the
materials are potentially recyclable and have a feasible means of being
recycled. Submittal of this proof is not required.
Change 3: Eliminate 268.7(d) Hazardous Debris Notifications.
We believe it may be unnecessary for generators and treaters of
excluded debris to send these notifications to EPA, as long as the
information contained in them is kept in facility records. Our
reasoning is set out in Change 2 above.
Change 4: Eliminate 268.9(a) Characteristic Waste Determinations
and Streamline 268.9(d) Notification Procedures.
We are reconsidering whether a separate waste determination under
268.9(a) is needed. Generators are required to determine whether they
have a hazardous waste under section 262.11. Treaters are required to
obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under section 264.13
which provides all information required to comply with Part 268 (among
other requirements). And under section 268.40, hazardous waste is
prohibited from land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the
Table of Treatment Standards (which requires knowledge of the EPA
hazardous characteristic waste code, underlying hazardous constituents,
wastewater and nonwastewater classification, and treatability group).
We believe that the section 262.11 waste determination, along with
the determinations required under sections 264.13 and 268.40, would be
sufficient to assure a waste is properly characterized for achieving
compliance with the LDRs. Therefore, we are considering whether the
268.9(a) waste determination should be eliminated.
Under section 268.9(d), once a characteristic waste is treated so
it is no longer characteristic, a one-time notification and
certification must be placed in the generators' or treaters' files and
sent to EPA. We are reevaluating whether these records need to be sent
to EPA when they are required to be kept on site in the facility's
files. Our reasoning is set out in Change 2 above.
Comments/Questions
We are soliciting comment on whether we should modify any of these
LDR requirements for waste determinations or notifications. Please let
us know if the contemplated modifications would eliminate information
waste handlers need to manage wastes properly. And, please let us know
if the reduced tracking requirements would weaken waste handlers'
accountability.
F. Should We Reduce Amount of Data Collected by the Biennial Report?
Existing Reporting Requirements for the Biennial Report
RCRA requires hazardous waste generators and TSDFs to submit a
report every other year on the quantity, composition, and disposition
of hazardous wastes they generate or receive for treatment, storage, or
disposal. Congress required that these reports be submitted to EPA or
an authorized state.
To implement these provisions, we issued the Biennial Report
regulations for large quantity generators and TSDFs, which are found in
40 CFR 262.41, 264.75, and 265.75. Generators and TSDFs must submit the
Biennial Report forms by March 1 of every even numbered year for their
hazardous waste activities in the previous (odd numbered) year. Through
these forms and their instructions, we tell generators and TSDFs what
information they should provide.
Over the years, we have changed the Biennial Report forms and
instructions. For example, in the 1997 Biennial Report, we eliminated
the entire Waste Treatment, Disposal, or Recycling Process System (PS)
form and the waste minimization questions. In doing so, we decreased
the amount of burden associated with the Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to the Biennial Report
We are evaluating whether we should revise the Biennial Report
forms and instructions to further reduce burden. Potentially, these
changes could be implemented for the 2001 Biennial Report cycle.
Change 1: Remove Optional Data Elements from the Current BRS Forms.
The current Biennial Report forms include data elements required by
EPA and those that are optionally reported by respondents. These
optional elements include state hazardous waste code, SIC code, origin
code, source code, point of measurement, and form code. We are
evaluating whether to remove some or all of these optional data
elements from the Biennial Report forms. Since not all respondents
complete the optional elements, we have incomplete information in our
national database for these elements. We have proposed eliminating
these elements before, and have received mixed feedback from states and
the regulated community.
Change 2: Eliminate Reporting of RCRA Hazardous Wastes That Are
Managed in Units Exempt From RCRA Permitting.
Currently, the Biennial Report covers all hazardous wastes that are
generated by LQGs and managed by TSDFs. However, many RCRA hazardous
wastestreams are managed in units that are subject to other
environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act. These particular waste streams are typically high volume
industrial wastewaters. We are considering whether to continue asking
for the reporting of any wastewater or nonwastewater wastestream
managed in exempt units in future Biennial Reports. We have also
proposed this idea before, and received mixed feedback.
Questions/Comments
We would like to know how you use Biennial Report data. We would
also like comments on these and other possible changes to the Biennial
Report. We want to know what impacts these changes might have on how
your facility would be characterized, as well as the characterization
of your waste streams. Would hazardous waste generation and management
data collected through a data set that excluded hazardous wastes
managed in units exempt from RCRA permitting meet the needs of Biennial
Report users? Would Biennial Report data that does not have optional
data elements be useful? Conversely, if optional data elements are
retained, how will that affect the usefulness and quality of the data
for analysis? As with other sections in today's NODA, do you have
additional ideas for reducing burden associated with the Biennial
Report?
III. What Other Burden Reduction Efforts Are Taking Place in RCRA
In addition to the proposals listed in today's NODA, there are
other efforts in EPA to identify and streamline RCRA paperwork
requirements. Because these projects are being conducted as separate
[[Page 32866]]
efforts from this particular burden reduction project, we are not
seeking detailed comments on them in this Notice, except for the BRS/
TRI integration idea.
A. Changes to the Hazardous Waste Manifest
Existing Manifest Requirements
RCRA directs us to develop a manifest system to ensure that offsite
shipments of hazardous waste arrive at a designated treatment, storage,
or disposal facility. The manifest system requirements are in 40 CFR
Parts 262, 263, 264, and 265. Under Part 262, hazardous waste
generators generally must complete a manifest for each shipment of
hazardous waste offsite. The manifest consists of a minimum of four
copies to facilitate recordkeeping by multiple parties. Generators must
keep a copy of the manifest signed by the transporter and,
subsequently, by the designated TSDF who must return a copy to the
generator. Part 263 requires hazardous waste transporters to sign and
date the manifest at pickup, carry it to the designated TSDF, and keep
a copy. Parts 264 and 265 require designated TSDFs to sign and date the
manifest, note any significant discrepancies, return a copy to the
generator, and keep a copy.
Proposed Changes to Manifest System
Based on recent analyses, we estimate that waste handlers take
about 4.2 million hours each year to comply with EPA and State
manifesting requirements. We are evaluating modifications to the
manifest system which could substantially reduce this burden,
including:
Modifying the manifest form.
We are considering further standardizing the manifest form and
allowing generators to obtain the form from multiple sources. We are
also thinking about ways to reduce the burden associated with a
generator's waste minimization certification requirements.
Providing manifesting relief to utilities.
Electric and gas utilities have told us they have difficulty
complying with some of the manifest procedures at their remote sites
(such as substations and manholes). We are evaluating whether to
streamline manifesting procedures for these sites.
Allowing automation of manifesting activities.
We are considering standards to enable industry to automate their
manifesting. To study this, we developed the Hazardous Waste Manifest
Automation Pilot Project, which is looking at both Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) and the Internet as mechanisms for automation. We
have tested EDI with waste handlers and hazardous waste agencies in
three states. Generators initiated the EDI manifests from their
personal computers and transmitted them through a network to
transporters, waste management facilities, and state agencies. Each
facility signed their manifests with a unique identification number.
Plans for the rest of 1999 include testing a digital signature in an
EDI system and testing use of the Internet to transmit manifests.
Addressing other technical concerns.
We are also evaluating improvements to other areas of the manifest
system. These include reducing inconsistencies between EPA and DOT
shipping requirements and improving the tracking of problem shipments
such as rejected loads and container residues.
If adopted, these changes could result in 600,000 hours of burden
reduction. These changes are scheduled to be published in a proposed
rule in June 2000.
B. Is There a Way To Decrease Burden Reduction of Biennial Reporting
System (BRS) Through Integration With the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI)?
An area for potential burden reduction that comes up frequently is
minimizing the overlap of reporting requirements for facilities that
file both the Biennial Report and the Toxic Release Inventory. EPA is
aware of the differences between these two information systems,
including the universe covered, the frequency of reporting, what is
reported, and the definition of facilities. However, a 1995 study of
facilities showed that 43% of facilities reporting under BRS also
reported to TRI and these facilities produced over 90% of the hazardous
waste volumes reported to BRS. With recent changes to TRI, the
percentage of BRS facilities that also report to TRI are expected to be
even higher. Given this overlap, EPA believes it should assess burden
reduction opportunities in this area. Comment is requested on the
following ideas:
Change 1: Pre-population of electronic forms with redundant data
elements.
Some burden reduction may be achieved by ensuring that similar data
elements are uniformly defined so that an electronic reporting format
for pre-populating a facility's TRI report with similar data elements
from that facility's BRS submission (or a BRS submission with TRI data)
could be implemented. These include the name of the facility, street
and mailing addresses of the facility, contact names and telephone
numbers, SIC Code, and EPA ID Number.
Change 2: Eliminate Biennial Reporting for wastes covered under
TRI.
Studies have shown that facilities which report under the Biennial
Report and also report to the Toxics Release Inventory are likely
generating 90% of the wastes that are reported to BRS. Although BRS
collects data on hazardous waste quantities and not the toxic chemical
quantities reported to TRI, we are studying ways to match hazardous
waste streams with the chemicals reporting in TRI . To the extent these
matches can be made clearly and accurately, we could potentially
eliminate whole categories of hazardous waste from being reported in
the Biennial Report.
Change 3: Limit the Biennial Report to 100 top generators; rely on
TRI for other RCRA facilities.
A small number of facilities are responsible for the majority of
the waste reported in BRS. This option would require the top 100 (or
some other number) facilities as measured by waste volume reported to
BRS to continue reporting under BRS. No other facilities would have to
report to BRS. All of these other facilities who reported to TRI in the
past would still report to TRI in this option.
Note that only facilities in certain North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS--the replacement for SIC) codes are
required to report under TRI. Under this option, many generators who
now report under BRS would not be required to report under TRI. This
would include business services (NAICS 5414), automotive repair and
services (NAICS 8111), health services (NAICS 621), national security
(NAICS 928), and wholesale/retail trade sectors. Furthermore, under
this option, we would no longer obtain information on off-site waste
shipments, since this is not covered in TRI.
Change 4: Collect all information under TRI.
Under this option, the TRI form would be modified to take data
elements currently only collected in BRS, such as waste code
description, waste code number, RCRA permitting information and put
them on the TRI form. There would be no more Biennial Report. The TRI
reporting universe would remain the same under this option.
EPA is aware that these options could pose concerns to both states
and the regulated community, especially given the investments that have
been made in BRS. We welcome comment on impacts should any of these
options be
[[Page 32867]]
implemented, and whether they would reduce the paperwork burden on the
public and regulated community.
C. Other RCRA Initiatives
We are not taking comments on the following initiatives. They are
being presented for informational purposes.
<bullet> EPA and the States have recognized the need to reassess
the information collected and managed to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste program. To meet this need, the Waste Information Needs (WIN)
Initiative was established to plan for and implement necessary
information management changes. One of the key principles of the WIN
Initiative is to identifying opportunities for reducing reporting
burden.
The Initiative is evaluating what information is needed to
implement and manage the hazardous waste program. Once these needs have
been identified, the Initiative will determine what information should
be available in a national database. The project has five phases:
Planning, analysis, design, construction, and implementation. Currently
the project is in the analysis and design phases.
For the analysis phase we divided the hazardous waste program into
five areas, which are called Program Area Analyses (PAA). Three PAAs
are active:
--Program Evaluation: The information needed to plan and evaluate the
hazardous waste program against its goals and objectives.
--Universe Identification: Who is regulated and what we need to know to
categorize and track them.
--Waste Activity Monitoring: The information needed on
characterization, generation, movement, and management of hazardous
wastes.
More information on the WIN/INFORMED Initiative is available on the
Internet at: http://www.eps.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data.
<bullet> EPA is drafting streamlined permitting procedures for
facilities that generate hazardous waste and manage it on-site in
tanks, containers, or containment buildings. We expect a proposed rule
on this subject to be published this summer.
<bullet> EPA proposed in a rulemaking in February of this year to
allow generators of the RCRA hazardous waste F006 (wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating) up to 180 days (or 270 days, if
applicable) accumulation time without obtaining a hazardous waste
storage permit or interim status if certain conditions are met. This is
an extension by 90 days of the time period to store hazardous waste
without a permit.
<bullet> EPA is working to streamline RCRA Appendix VIII of 40 CFR
261. This is a list of over 480 chemicals used to define hazardous
waste as well as the constituents which must be monitored during waste
treatment. To reduce the burden to Appendix VIII users, EPA is
reconfiguring and modifying Appendix VIII entries based on the
probability of occurrence of certain constituents in particular types
of waste.
<bullet> A number of years ago, we reexamined the regulatory
standards for used oil handlers. We decided to remove used oil handlers
entirely from the hazardous waste regulatory realm. They are now
covered under their own regulatory authority, which provides hazardous
waste regulatory-level environmental protection with a much lower level
of reporting and record keeping. At the time these standards were
established, EPA learned that most of the recordkeeping requirements
established in the new regulatory scheme were already standard industry
practices. Because substantial changes have already been implemented by
this program, we have not included any used oil ideas in today's
Notice.
<bullet> Likewise, a number of years ago we reexamined the
regulations governing the collection and management of universal
waste--batteries, thermostats, and certain pesticides. We decided to
reduce the reporting requirements for these wastes at that time. For
example, Biennial Report requirements do not apply to large quantity
and small quantity handlers of universal waste, and a manifest is not
required to accompany off-site shipments.
<bullet> The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has
enacted burden reduction for the RCRA air regulations (40 CFR Parts 264
and 265 subparts AA: Process vents, BB:Equipment leaks, and CC: Tanks,
surface impoundments, containers, and miscellaneous units). This
eliminated much of the overlap between the RCRA air regulations and the
Clean Air Act standards. Now TSDFs and large quantity generators can
demonstrate compliance with the RCRA air regulations by simply
documenting that affected units are operating with air emission
controls that are in accordance with applicable Clean Air Act standards
under 40 CFR 60, 61, or 63.
For any RCRA unit in compliance with such Clean Air Act
regulations, these provisions would reduce the reporting and record
keeping burden of the RCRA air regulations by nearly 100%. EPA is
currently in the process of quantifying the burden reduction savings of
these provisions. We expect that the majority of large-quantity
generators and TSDFs are subject to one or more regulations under 40
CFR 60, 61 or 63. In addition to these compliance exemptions, EPA has
also published other amendments to the Subparts AA, BB and CC air
regulations that significantly reduce reporting and record keeping.
IV. What Are Other Agency Burden Reduction Initiatives?
We are not taking comments on the following initiatives. They are
being presented for informational purposes.
<bullet> The Agency's The Next Generation in Permitting Plan, which
was announced in February of this year, combines permitting system
improvements underway in the individual program offices (such as
hazardous waste, air, and water) with improvements developed by an
Agency workgroup. The goal is to increase flexibility, encourage
pollution reduction, improve public participation in permitting
decisions, and reduce paperwork burden.
<bullet> The different designs of Agency information collection
systems have caused facilities to be identified inconsistently across
program offices. This makes it difficult to link and analyze all the
information collected by EPA. The Agency's Facility Identification
Initiative hopes to standardize identification information for all
facilities subject to federal environmental reporting requirements.
<bullet> The One Stop Reporting Program's mission is to reinvent
environmental reporting to: reduce industry reporting burden, foster
multimedia and place-based (a specific area of contamination, an
ecological area, or a political jurisdiction) approaches to
environmental problem solving, and provide the public with easy access
to environmental information. Recognizing the importance of states as
primary collectors of environmental data, One-Stop is working with them
to implement data reporting and management reforms. To date, the One
Stop Program has awarded demonstration grants to 21 states to work
towards achieving these goals.
<bullet> The Common Sense Initiative (CSI), which began in1994, has
tested the possibilities of replacing a single-media approach to
regulation and reporting with a multimedia approach focusing on
industrial sectors. One of the industries that has been looked at is
the metal finishing industry. From this examination, several
recommendations were made: We should promote electronic reporting (one
of the recommendations in today's NODA), replace RCRA IDs with a common
identification that could be used across
[[Page 32868]]
multi-media programs, and eliminate redundancy in the Toxics Release
Inventory, the Hazardous Waste Manifest, and the Biennial Report.
The CSI CURE (Consolidated Uniform Report for the Environment)
project was developed for the computer and electronics industry sector
between 1995-99 by the state of Texas. CSI CURE examined consolidating
environmental reporting at the facility level and eliminating
redundancies.
<bullet> In February 1998, the EPA Administrator issued the
Reinventing Environmental Information Action Plan. The Plan commits
EPA, in partnership with the states, to implement core data standards
and make electronic reporting available in the Agency's major national
systems within five years.
<bullet> Finally, in partnership with industry associations,
environmental groups, universities, and other government agencies, EPA
has created nine Compliance Assistance Centers. The Centers help small
and medium sized businesses and local governments better understand and
comply with federal environmental requirements. Each center is targeted
to a specific industry sector and explains relevant federal
environmental regulations.
V. Technical Background Information Containing Specific Burden
Reduction Ideas
A. Is There a Description of Burden Reduction Ideas Not in Today's
NODA?
We have put a document entitled ``Burden Reduction Ideas'' in the
RCRA Information Center and on the Internet: http://www.epa.oswer/
hazwaste/data/burdenreduction. In it, we describe some sections of the
RCRA regulations that require paperwork and propose ideas for reducing
this burden.
We seek your comments on the merits or disadvantages of any of
these ideas and our estimates of burden savings. As with other sections
of this NODA, if you have additional ideas, we welcome them.
B. What Are the RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting Requirements?
We have put a document entitled ``RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting
Requirements'' in the RCRA Docket and on the Internet. In this
document, we list all the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements.
For each reporting requirement, we provide specific information on each
requirement, including a description of the requirement, its regulatory
citation(s), the approved EPA ICR that covers the reporting
requirement, the current baseline burden estimate, frequency of its
reporting, and whether the requirement applies to generators, TSDFs, or
both. We organize and display the reporting requirements in six
categories: Notifications; reports; certifications; variances,
exemptions, demonstrations, and extensions; permits; and plans. Within
these categories, we sorted the requirements by regulatory citation.
As noted earlier in the NODA, we are evaluating whether we should
turn some of the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements into
recordkeeping requirements. We recognize that some of this information
will still need to be reported to EPA or a state. We seek your comments
on this concept, what criteria should be used in determining whether
reporting requirements can be turned into recordkeeping requirements,
any potential impacts there would be if this information is not
submitted, and whether this will result in burden reduction.
C. What Are the Accounting Changes for OSW ICRs?
We have put a document entitled ``Accounting Changes'' in the RCRA
Docket and on the Internet. In this document, we list accounting
changes for some OSW ICRs that could be implemented through ICR
renewals. Accounting changes are not changes to paperwork requirements
but rather changes to the way we measure burden in our ICRs. They are
our efforts to better estimate the actual burden to the public and
regulated community. For example, we could make it a rule throughout
all ICRs that we only assign burden for reading regulations to new
facilities. The presumption here is that existing facilities know the
regulations and do not have to read them each time they do an activity.
While not regulatory changes, these accounting changes reduce the
amount of paperwork burden OSW has in its individual ICRs.
In this document, we list proposed accounting changes for reducing
burden associated with specific paperwork requirements and ICRs. Each
idea includes a brief summary, the affected regulatory citations,
comments on implementing these ideas, the ICR in which the paperwork
requirement can be found, an estimate of the burden savings that might
be achieved if it were implemented, and a description of the
assumptions used in calculating the potential burden hour savings. In
most cases, we used our best judgment to estimate the savings, while in
others, we were able to make specific calculations.
In reviewing this document, we ask you to comment on whether these
are realistic assumptions and the accuracy of our estimates of burden
savings.
D. What Are OSW's Burden Hours ?
We have put a document in the RCRA docket and on the Internet which
lists OSW's ICRs and their burden hours as of 1995 and today.
Dated: June 8, 1999.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 99-15544 Filed 6-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P