Appendix A (06142007)

Appendix A

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR
VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION IN LIEU OF CHLOROFORM MINIMUM
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGING
MILLS IN THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY OF
THE PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY (RENEWAL)
(40 CFR PART 430)
EPA ICR Number 2015.02
OMB Control Number 2040-0242

May 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

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

2.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................................................ 2
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ............................................................................... 2
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data............................................................................... 3

3.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................ 3
3(a) Non-duplication .......................................................................................................... 3
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission ...................................................... 4
3(c) Consultations ............................................................................................................... 4
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection.................................................................... 4
3(e) General Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 5
3(f) Confidentiality ............................................................................................................. 5
3(g) Sensitive Questions...................................................................................................... 5

4.

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

5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .......................................... 7
5(a) Agency Activities ........................................................................................................ 7
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ................................................................. 8
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility ............................................................................................... 8
5(d) Collection Schedule ..................................................................................................... 8

6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION............................... 9
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................................................................... 9
6(b) Estimating Respondent Cost...................................................................................... 12
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost......................................................................... 13
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs ........................... 14
6(e) Burden Statement....................................................................................................... 14

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1

Number of Eligible Mills and Lines ........................................................................... 9

Table 6.2

Recurring Burden for Activities Related to Certification
in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring ........................................................... 10

Table 6.3

Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 ....................................................................................... 11

Table 6.4

Total Burden Reduction Resulting from Certification
in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring .......................................................... 12

Table 6.5

Summary of Incurred and reduced Annual Respondent
Burden and Costs ...................................................................................................... 14

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 1

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a) Title of the Information Collection
Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct
and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (EPA ICR No. 2015.02) (OMB Control
Number 2040-0242).
1(b)

Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to
the regulated community for voluntary certification in lieu of chloroform monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping associated with implementation of the minimum monitoring requirements of
the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (Cluster Rules;
40 CFR Part 430), which were published on April 15, 1998 for mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B). See 63 FR 18504-18751. Certification in lieu of
chloroform minimum monitoring requirements allows direct and indirect discharging Subpart B
mills to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards under 40
CFR Part 430 in lieu of monitoring at a fiber line required by 40 CFR 430.02 by voluntarily
certifying (1) that the fiber line is not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching
agents and (2) that it also maintains certain process and operating conditions identified during
the initial compliance demonstration period. This is a renewal ICR.
Initial compliance demonstration consists of the time period, not less than two years,
during which 104 monitoring data measurements are collected per minimum monitoring required
by 40 CFR 430.02 (or more frequently if required by the permitting or pretreatment control
authority) for each fiber line the facility wishes to certify. During this time period, the facility
will monitor and maintain records of the range of certain process and operating conditions that
the fiber lines are operated within. The collected monitoring data will be used to demonstrate
compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards for each fiber line and provide
confirmation that the fiber line, if operated within the range of certain process and operating
conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period, continues to comply
with the chloroform limitations and standards.
Facilities that choose to certify any or all of their fiber lines with their NPDES permit or
pretreatment control authority, in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR
Part 430, will be required to submit periodic reports certifying that the fiber line(s) are operating
within the range of certain process and operating conditions identified during the initial
compliance demonstration period. Mills that voluntarily choose to certify will be required to
maintain records of certain process and operating conditions, and also will be required to notify
their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority if their certified fiber lines no longer
operate within the range of process and operating conditions. At the discretion of the NPDES
permit or pretreatment control authority, the facility may then be required to again monitor at
their fiber lines as required by 40 CFR 430.02.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 2

Applicable facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum
monitoring will experience a total reduction in overall monitoring, reporting, and analytical
burden and costs associated with the minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02. The
universe eligible for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring consists of 84 direct
and indirect discharging Subpart B mills.
This is a renewal ICR covering the incurred burden and costs for the estimated 80 out of
the universe of 84 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills that for EPA ICR No. 2015.01
were anticipated to voluntarily certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring
and the subsequent overall reduction in burden and costs incurred by these facilities as a result of
reduced monitoring, reporting, and analytical requirements per 40 CFR 430.02. This ICR does
not cover the burden and costs for State NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities or
EPA associated with facilities certifying their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum
monitoring because it is anticipated that there will be an exact trade-off between the burden and
costs incurred from reviewing periodic certification reports for voluntarily participating fiber
lines versus reviewing periodic chloroform monitoring data for facilities complying with 40 CFR
430.02. Incurred burden and costs of certification for State NPDES permit authorities or EPA
are described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR (OMB 2040-0243) for direct
dischargers. The burden and cost of certification for pretreatment control authorities are
generically covered by National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB 2040-0009) for indirect
dischargers. Review functions that may incur burden include actions in response to a mill
voluntarily choosing to certify in lieu of monitoring that notifies their NPDES permit or
pretreatment control authority that its participating fiber line(s) are operating outside the range of
process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period.
2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a)

Need/Authority for the Collection

As mentioned above, EPA established minimum monitoring frequencies for chloroform
for existing and new direct and indirect discharging mills within Subpart B under authority of
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 to demonstrate compliance with existing effluent
limitations and standards for chloroform (and other pollutant parameters) promulgated under 40
CFR Part 430. EPA is also allowing applicable facilities to voluntarily demonstrate compliance
with chloroform limitations and standards by certifying their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform
minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02. EPA has determined that this voluntary
certification option significantly reduces the overall compliance burden and costs associated with
meeting and demonstrating compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards.
EPA has also determined that an initial compliance demonstration is necessary for each
participating mill to establish the range of normal variability in process and operating parameters
that are consistent with compliance with the chloroform effluent limitations. Once this range is
established for each participating fiber line, periodic certification reports are submitted to the
NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority to confirm and certify that the fiber line
continues to comply with the chloroform effluent limitations and standards. The Agency=s

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 3

authority to provide for this voluntary certification option in lieu of minimum monitoring is
Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA which directs EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure
compliance with requirements Aincluding conditions on data and information collection,
reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deems appropriate.@
2(b)

Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The primary users of the data are the owners and operators of direct and indirect
discharging pulp and paper mills in Subparts B and NPDES permitting, pretreatment control and
enforcement authorities. Citizen groups also use this data to independently assess facility
compliance.
EPA expects that the initial compliance demonstration and periodic certification reports
will be used by NPDES and pretreatment control authorities to determine compliance with the
Cluster Rules effluent limitations and standards for chloroform, establish permit and
pretreatment control agreement conditions to include the voluntary certification option, and
revise permit requirements as may be necessary based on data from the initial compliance
demonstration, certification reports, and any additional information and data the mill may be
required to report. EPA anticipates that State and NPDES permitting and pretreatment control
authorities will only need to conduct detailed technical reviews of certification reports in the
event the reports indicate noncompliance with the NPDES permit or pretreatment control
agreement.
Mills that voluntarily choose to participate may elect to assert claims of confidential
business information (CBI), according to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2, on any portions of the
process and operating data submitted to support a certification in lieu of minimum monitoring
for chloroform. However, CBI claims will not be appropriate for periodic reports simply
certifying that mill operations remain within the ranges of process and operating parameters
established during the initial compliance demonstration.
3.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(a) Non-duplication

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 430, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the
following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available
elsewhere:
$
$
$

EPA Information Systems Inventory,
Government Information Locator System (GILS), and
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 4

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate collection requirements. EPA has
concluded that there is no other way to obtain the initial compliance demonstration and
certification information addressed in this ICR.
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission
EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior formal submission to OMB. EPA published a
formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 (69 FR 52883-52888). EPA received
no comments.
3(c) Consultations
As mentioned above, EPA solicited public comments on the current draft ICR.
Additionally, EPA has consulted with the public, industry and States on the certification in lieu
of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements.
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection
The certification option requires the collection of 104 measurements of chloroform data
over a period not less than two years during the initial compliance demonstration period per
minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 (or more frequently if required by the
permitting or pretreatment control authority), documenting of process and operating conditions,
and subsequent monthly reporting and recordkeeping via periodic certification reports.
Chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430 as part of the initial compliance
demonstration is described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging
Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR (OMB 2040-0243)
for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB 2040-0009) for indirect
dischargers. Mill operators collect such data on process and operating conditions independent of
this requirement for purposes of monitoring and optimizing bleach plant, chemical recovery, and
wastewater treatment plant operations. EPA determined that the number of chloroform data
points collected during the initial compliance demonstration are necessary because there are
potentially many sources of variability in effluent discharges of unit operations in each
participating fiber line. While available information used by EPA to understand and establish
certification requirements capture the most likely sources of variability, all mill specific sources
of variability may not be accounted for. Therefore, EPA was concerned that less frequent
monitoring would not provide the information necessary to ensure that mills collect adequate
data to define ranges of process and operating parameters within which they will subsequently be
required to operate to assure compliance with the chloroform effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated as part of the Cluster Rules while also successfully producing products of
acceptable quality. See 63 FR 18571-72. EPA determined that periodic certification reports are
necessary to confirm that facilities with participating fiber lines are operating within the range of
process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period.
The frequency of submission of periodic certification reports is the same as discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) required for other pollutant parameters for direct dischargers by their

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 5

NPDES permits, Periodic Compliance Reports (PCRs) for other pollutant parameters for indirect
dischargers, and provides an efficient means for submitting information to the permit writer and
pretreatment control authority.
3(e) General Guidelines
This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2).
3(f)

Confidentiality

As noted in 2(b) above, mills that voluntarily choose to participate may elect to assert
claims of confidential business information (CBI), according to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2,
on any portions of the process and operating data submitted to support a certification in lieu of
minimum monitoring for chloroform. However, CBI claims will not be appropriate for periodic
reports simply certifying that mill operations remain within the ranges of process and operating
parameters established during the initial compliance demonstration.
3(g) Sensitive Questions
The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.
4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4(a)

Respondents and SIC and NAICS Codes

The respondent universe for this ICR will be: 1) approximately 84 direct and indirect
discharging chemical pulp mills included in Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) of
the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category (SIC 2611, 2631) (NAICS 32211,
322121, 322122, 32213).
4(b)

Information Requested

The following section outlines the requirements of the voluntary certification option and
information requested. During the initial compliance demonstration period, the facility must
collect 24-hour composite samples of its representative bleach plant effluent(s) on a weekly (or
more frequent) basis and analyze these samples for chloroform. All of the monitoring results
during the initial compliance demonstration period must be in compliance with the chloroform
effluent limitations and standards. If a mill chooses to sample more frequent than weekly, then it
is the mill=s responsibility to ensure that such more frequent sampling captures the range of
process and operating parameter variability that occurs during normal operations. Once this
range is established, if mill operations do not remain within that range during the subsequent
period of certification in lieu of minimum monitoring, violation will occur and minimum
monitoring to recertify will be required. During each 24-hour sampling period, the facility must
maintain records of the following bleach plant process and operating parameters:

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Page 6

The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
The chlorine (Cl2 ) content of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) used on the bleach line;
The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate; and
The chlorine-containing compounds used for bleaching (i.e., the bleach sequence).

At many mills monitoring of process and operating parameters is accomplished electronically by
computerized distributed control systems (DCS).
When the facility has completed its initial compliance demonstration, it may request that
its permitting or pretreatment control authority modify its permit or pretreatment control
agreement to discontinue weekly chloroform monitoring of bleach plant effluent. At the time
that it makes this request, the facility must:
(a) Certify that the fiber line does not use either elemental chlorine or hypochlorite;
(b) Provide records demonstrating that, based on 104 measurements collected over a
period not less than two years, that the fiber line complies with applicable
chloroform limitations or standards; and
(c) Document the range of process and operating conditions that occurred during the
collection of samples used to demonstrate initial compliance. Specifically, the
facility must identify the chlorine-containing compounds used for bleaching (i.e., the
bleach sequence). The facility must also document the maximum values, observed
during sample collection of:
(i) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage;
(ii) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) used on the bleach line;
(iii) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; and
(iv) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate.
Thereafter, at the same frequency that the facility submits discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
to its permitting authority or periodic compliance reports (PCRs) to its pretreatment control
authority, the facility must certify that:
(a) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage has not exceeded the pH range
measured during initial compliance demonstration sample collection;
(b) The chlorine (Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) used on the bleach line has not
exceeded the maximum Cl2 content of ClO2 used during initial compliance
demonstration sample collection;
(c) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage has not exceeded the
maximum kappa factor employed during initial compliance demonstration sample
collection;
(d) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate has not exceeded the
maximum chlorine dioxide application rate employed during initial compliance
demonstration sample collection; and
(e) The chlorine-containing compounds used for bleaching are unchanged from those
used during initial compliance demonstration sample collection.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 7

The facility also must maintain on-site records for the fiber line of these process and operating
conditions. If the facility purposely changes or unintentionally fails to maintain process and
operating conditions on the fiber line representative of those employed during initial compliance
demonstration, the facility must notify the permitting or pretreatment control authority and again
monitor for chloroform, and recertify the fiber line to continue the certification option to
demonstrate compliance in lieu of minimum monitoring.
5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a) Agency Activities

Activities undertaken by EPA under this information collection primarily include
oversight of the NPDES and pretreatment control programs, and where EPA is the NPDES
permitting or pretreatment control authority, review of data and information collected during the
initial compliance demonstration period, review of periodic certification reports, and where
necessary, follow-up actions.
The extent to which EPA reviews reports and data in assessing permit and pretreatment
control agreement compliance with the certification option may vary. For example, EPA may
conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their
certification and permit or pretreatment control agreement requirements, than of permittees who
have been in full compliance. EPA may limit its review of data submitted by fully compliant
permittees to a simple determination of continuing compliance through certification. In most
cases, EPA will forward copies of reports to the States. EPA does not require the unauthorized
States to review data, but several States voluntarily conduct the review and use the results in
their own programs.
EPA regions may also review data from major permittees in NPDES and pretreatment
control authorized States while performing program oversight functions (e.g., during file audits
and when compiling statistical compliance summaries).
Reported data is often stored in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for reference. EPA
and States may use this data to evaluate potential compliance problems, focus inspection efforts,
conduct spot check reviews and determine appropriate enforcement action. PCS is available for
public review at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/water.html#pcs.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 8

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
Respondents typically report collected compliance data for all pollutant parameters on
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for direct dischargers and periodic compliance reports
(PCRs) for indirect dischargers. For those facilities that choose to certify in lieu of chloroform
minimum monitoring at a fiber line, periodic certification reports may be submitted with DMRs
and PCRs. Allowing combined reporting for both the certification option (for chloroform) and
compliance (for all other pollutant parameters) is one method that EPA has used to improve its
collection methodology. EPA expects that the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) will be finalized in the next few months, which will enable EPA to accept
electronic submission of data. The electronic submission of certification reports, DMR and PCR
data is voluntary and will be an alternative to the paper submissions. EPA makes use of the PCS
database to store, track and access this information.
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
EPA considered less burdensome information collection mechanisms for small entities,
but chose not to alter the collection procedure for the following reasons:
$

The certification in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform required by 40 CFR
430.02 provides an overall reduction in burden and costs from the minimum monitoring
requirements included in the Cluster Rules, for which EPA has already certified will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term
is used in the RFA (see Section X.C. of the Preamble to the final Cluster Rules published
in the Federal Register on April 15, 1998 (see 63 FR 18611).

$

Moreover, mills will be subject to the information collection only if they choose to
participate in the chloroform certification program.
5(d) Collection Schedule

The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to coincide with
existing reporting schedules. The timeframes for submitting periodic certification reports and
associated activities are outlined below:
$

Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping are performed on a continual basis;

$

Reports are to be prepared for submission to NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authorities at a frequency to be determined by these authorities, but no less than once
per year. EPA expects that such reporting frequencies will be consistent with
existing reporting requirements already applicable to mills.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

6.

Page 9

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

This section describes the methods EPA used to estimate the burden to respondents
associated with the initial compliance demonstration and periodic compliance reports required
with the certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430.
The number of facilities potentially affected by this ICR is listed in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Number of Eligible Mills and Lines
Subpart B, Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and
Soda

Number of
Facilities

Number of Bleach Lines

Direct Dischargers

75

120

Indirect Dischargers

9

14

Total

84

134

For ICR 205.01 EPA estimated that of the 75 existing direct discharging Subpart B mills
eligible for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements, consisting of a
total of 120 fiber lines, 74 facilities, for a total of 118 fiber lines, would choose to certify. EPA
estimated that of the nine existing indirect discharging Subpart B mills eligible for certification
in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements, consisting of a total of 14 fiber lines,
six facilities, for a total of nine fiber lines, would choose to certify. EPA is carrying these
assumptions for this renewal ICR.
(i) Initial Compliance Demonstration
EPA does not expect any additional facilities to enroll in the voluntary certification in
lieu of chloroform monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with implementation of
the minimum monitoring requirements of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
(ii) Periodic Certification Reports and Recordkeeping
EPA estimates a recurring reporting burden of 0.5 hours monthly per facility for
submitting periodic certification reports to the permitting or pretreatment control authority to
confirm that the certified fiber lines are not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching
agents and are maintaining the process and operating conditions within the range documented
during the initial compliance period. This burden consists of a certification report submitted to
the permitting or pretreatment control authority and maintaining records which document and
substantiate submitted certification reports. This burden estimate is based upon monthly
submissions of DMRs for direct dischargers and PCRs for indirect dischargers, including
certification reports.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 10

The total recurring burden incurred by the 80 direct and indirect discharging mills
anticipated to certify their 127 fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring for
chloroform is summarized below.
Table 6.2 Recurring Burden for Activities Related to Certification in Lieu of Chloroform
Minimum Monitoring
Submission of monthly certification
reports

Number of
Affected
Facilities

Monthly
Burden
(hours)

Total Annual
Burden
(hours)

Direct

74

0.5

444

Indirect

6

0.5

36

Total

80

0.5

480

(iii) Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR
430.02
Facilities that have certified their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 will experience a reduction in recurring burden associated with
reduced monitoring and reporting, namely the discontinuance of weekly chloroform monitoring
at bleach plant effluent(s). Annual sampling burden associated with chloroform minimum
monitoring per fiber line is estimated at 156 hours. Annual reporting burden associated with
chloroform minimum monitoring per facility is estimated at two hours. Description of these
estimates can be found in Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR (OMB 2040-0243) for direct
dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB 2040-0009) for indirect
dischargers.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 11

Table 6.3 Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR
430.02
Activity

Number of
Affected
Facilities

Annual
Burden
(hours)

Total Annual
Burden
(hours)

118 fiber lines

156

18,408

9 fiber lines

156

1,404

Reporting for minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 (Direct)

74 mills

2

148

Reporting for minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 (Indirect)

6 mills

2

12

Sampling for minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 (Direct)
Sampling for minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 (Indirect)

ANNUAL BURDEN REDUCTION

19,972

EPA does not estimate a reduction in recurring recordkeeping burden associated with
minimum monitoring requirements for those facilities that certify their fiber lines in lieu of
chloroform minimum monitoring because records are maintained for the monitoring for other
pollutant parameters, regardless of the discontinuation of minimum monitoring for chloroform.
(iv) NPDES and Pretreatment Control authorized State Respondent Burden
The burden and associated costs to NPDES and pretreatment control authorized State
authorities for reviewing reports for the initial compliance demonstration for facilities wishing to
certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring, revising NPDES permits and
pretreatment control agreements, reviewing periodic certification reports, and conducting followup actions are estimated to exactly offset previous recurring burden for processing and analyzing
chloroform monitoring data included in the facility=s DMR or PCR and conducting follow-up
actions related to compliance. Therefore, the Agency does not estimate any addition or
reduction of recurring burden for NPDES and pretreatment control authorities with facilities
wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring.
The additional and reduced burden for facilities wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu
of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02, showing an overall reduction in
total recurring burden, is summarized below.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 12

Table 6.4 Total Burden Reduction Resulting from Certification in Lieu of Chloroform
Minimum Monitoring
Activity

Total Annual
Burden (hours)

Annual burden reduction from sampling and reporting for minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02
Annual burden for reporting for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum
monitoring
TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN REDUCTION

6(b)

19,972
480
19,492

Estimating Respondent Cost

(i) Estimating Labor Costs (2004 Dollars)
Estimates for respondent labor costs were prepared using industry-specific labor rates
identical to those used for the EPA ICR Number 1878.01, included overhead and fringe benefits,
and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index: To verify the validity of
the adjusted rates EPA obtained national industry-specific wage estimates for the pulp, paper,
and paperboard mills from the Labor Department 1. Noting that the Labor Department wages
were lower, EPA decided to apply the more conservative estimates from the previous ICR 2.
Technician :
Operator

$64.58 /hour
$32.81 /hour

1

May 2003 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100 Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for Architecture and Engineering Occupations (SOC
Code 17-0000) and Production Occupation (SOC Code 51-0000), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe
benefits, are 45.64 and 27.14 respectively.
2

EPA ICR # 2015.01, Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements
for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper
and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, November 2001.

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 13

Technician labor is applied to reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Operator labor is
applied to sampling burden. This ICR covers an increase in recurring reporting burden related to
periodic certification reports and a reduction in sampling and reporting burden related to the
discontinuance of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02.
(ii) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
Facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring for
chloroform required by 40 CFR 430.02 will experience an overall reduction in O&M costs
related to the discontinuance of collecting and shipping chloroform samples to outside
laboratories for analysis. The analytical cost for chloroform performed at outside laboratories is
estimated at $320 per sample, taken from EPA ICR Number 2015.01 (originally from the BAT
cost model in the ABAT Cost Model Support Document@ [DCN 13953]) and adjusted with the
Consumer Price Index to 2004 dollars. Collection of two chloroform samples per fiber line (i.e.,
bleach plant) per week is estimated to meet minimum monitoring requirements. This estimate is
described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR (OMB OMB 2040-0243) for direct
dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB 2040-0009) for indirect
dischargers.
The reduction in recurring O&M burden for facilities that choose to certify their fiber
lines in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform required by 40 CFR 430.02 consists of the
elimination of sample collection and shipping costs, and chloroform analytical costs.
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
EPA burden is based on management and support activities for facilities that choose to
certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02
located in:
C

States without NPDES or pretreatment control authority: EPA activities include
reviewing reports for the initial compliance demonstration for facilities wishing to certify
their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring, revising NPDES permits and
pretreatment control agreements, reviewing periodic certification reports, and conducting
follow-up actions. Burden associated with these activities are estimated to exactly offset
previous recurring burden for processing and analyzing chloroform monitoring data
included in the facility=s DMR or PCR and conducting follow-up actions related to
compliance.

C

States with NPDES and pretreatment control authority: EPA activities include
program support, such as review of NPDES permit and pretreatment control agreements
renewal applications and draft permits and agreements, and review of information
submitted by the facilities, including certification reports. Burden associated with these
activities are described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging
Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR (OMB 2040-

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 14

0243) for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB 20400009) for indirect dischargers and will not be impacted by the certification option.
The Agency does not estimate any addition or reduction of recurring burden for EPA
associated with facilities intending to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum
monitoring.
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
Table 6.5 summarizes the total annual burden and costs incurred for facilities that choose
to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring and the associated overall
reduction in annual burden and costs for reduced minimum monitoring requirements.

Table 6.5 Summary of Incurred and Reduced Annual Respondent Burden and Costs
Activity

Annual
Labor
(Hours)

Annual Costs
(2004 Dollars)

Incurred Annual Burden and Costs (Certification in Lieu of
Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements)
Submission of monthly certification reports

480

$30,998

Reduced Annual Burden and Costs (Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR 430.02)
Sampling
Reporting
Analytical
Total

19,812
160
19,972

$650,032
$10,333
$4,226,560
$4,886,925

Total Reduction in Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

19,492

$4,855,927

6(e)

Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent. Certification in lieu of chloroform minimum
monitoring eliminates all sampling burden associated with the minimum monitoring
requirements for chloroform. A total of 19,492 hours annually would be saved by the 80 direct
and indirect discharging Subpart B mills that EPA anticipated would choose to certify their 127
fiber lines. At an hourly operator rate of $32.81 per hour for sampling activities, reduction in
sampling costs associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by
40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $650,032 per year ($32.81 x 19,812). In addition, the
elimination of chloroform sampling activities results in an associated reduction in analytical
costs for the outside lab analysis of chloroform samples. The total reduction in analytical costs
associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02

Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Page 15

for the 80 mills would be $4,226,560 per year (127 fiber lines x 2 samples per fiber line x 52
weeks x $320 per analysis). An increase in reporting burden for the 80 mills would be 320 (480
- 160) hours annually, based on the submission of periodic certification reports in lieu of
reporting chloroform compliance data in DMRs and PCRs. At an hourly technician rate of
$64.58 for reporting activities, an increase in reporting costs associated with certifying fiber lines
in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $20,666
per year ($64.58 x 320). Therefore, the overall reduction in the total burden and cost to
demonstrate compliance with minimum monitoring requirements by certifying fiber lines in lieu
of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $4,855,927 per
year ($650,032 + $4,226,560 - $20,666). This reduction in cost translates to approximately
$60,699 annually per mill.
The Agency does not estimate any change in burden for State authorized NPDES and
pretreatment control authorities or EPA from the burden associated with minimum monitoring
required by 40 CFR 430.02 for facilities ( i.e., permitees) wishing to certify their fiber lines in
lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection
of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the
use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID No. OW-2004-0028, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An
electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the
docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (OW-20040028) and OMB control number (2040-0242) in any correspondence.

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT
AND SODA SUBCATEGORY AND THE PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
OF THE PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
(40 CFR PART 430)

EPA ICR Number 1829.03
OMB Control Number 2040-0207

June 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Best Management Practices ICR

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

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

2.

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

3.

NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4

4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(a) Respondents and Sic Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(c) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
4
4
6

5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
7
7
7
8

6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6(b) Estimating Agency Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6(c) Bottom Line Burden and Costs Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6(d) Reasons for Change of Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6(e) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

i

Best Management Practices ICR

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Summary of Mill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mill Labor for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mill Costs for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recurring Respondent Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bottom Line Initial Burden and Costs Based in 2000 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bottom Line Recurring Burden and Costs Based in 2000 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

ii

Best Management Practices ICR

1

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a)

Title of the Information Collection

ICR: Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and
the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category
(Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1829.03).
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
This Information Collection Request (ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to
the regulated community (approximately 94 bleached papergrade kraft, soda and sulfite mills)
and NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities for data collection and recordkeeping
associated with implementation of the Best Management Practices requirements of the Pulp and
Paper Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 430.03). This is a renewal
ICR.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
include Best Management Practices (BMPs) in effluent limitations guidelines and standards
regulations. EPA’s legal authority to promulgate BMPs is found in Section 304(e), Section
307(b) and (c), Section 308(a), Section 402(a)(1)(B) and Section 501(a) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. §1251, et. seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR 122.44(k). The BMP regulation is
consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 13101, et. seq.
The objectives of the BMPs are to prevent leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap
and turpentine for mills in bleached papergrade kraft and soda (Subpart B) and papergrade
sulfite (Subpart E) subcategories; and, to contain, collect and recover at the immediate process
area, or otherwise control, those leaks, spills and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor
that do occur. EPA has emphasized control of spent pulping liquors, intentional liquor
diversions, soap and turpentine for the following reasons: (1) losses of spent pulping liquor
contribute significant portions of untreated wastewater loadings and discharge loadings of color,
oxygen-demanding substances, and non-chlorinated toxic compounds from chemical pulp mills;
(2) spent pulping liquor spills and intentional liquor diversions are a principal cause of upsets
and loss of efficiency of biological treatment systems that are used for treatment of Subpart B
and E mill wastewaters, thus contributing to increased effluent discharges of toxic, conventional
and nonconventional pollutants; (3) soap and turpentine are substances that are highly toxic to
biological treatment systems; and (4) control of spent pulping liquors is a form of pollution
prevention that can result in cost savings, less demand for make-up pulping chemicals, increased
energy efficiency, more effective wastewater treatment and incidental reductions in atmospheric
emissions of total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds from kraft mills and volatile hazardous air
pollutants from Subpart B and E mills.
The regulation requires that owners or operators of Subpart B and E mills prepare and
implement site-specific BMPs for management of spent pulping liquors and prevent and control
losses of soap and turpentine. In addition, the regulation requires mills to monitor the
effectiveness of BMP implementation on a continuing basis by tracking the influent-to-treatment
wastewater loading. EPA has structured the BMP regulation to provide maximum flexibility to
the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on NPDES permit and
1

Best Management Practices ICR

2

pretreatment control authorities that regulate Subpart B and E mills. In fact, the final BMP
regulation provides flexibility for mill owners or operators to select any reasonable measure of
organic loading and/or spent pulping liquor losses to monitor the effectiveness of BMPs. Also,
the final regulation is less prescriptive than the proposed rule with regard to inspection, repair
and log-keeping requirements. EPA determined that the final rule language allows mills to use
existing maintenance and repair tracking systems to fulfill the aforementioned requirements
thereby reducing burden to the industry. By promulgating a national regulation for BMPs, EPA
has effectively removed substantial administrative and technical burdens on NPDES and
pretreatment control authorities to devise and implement these requirements on a case-by-case
basis through their permit programs.
In summary, implementation of effective BMPs has been shown to provide a potential
significant payback to a mill. In one incident at an indirect-discharging kraft mill in the
southeastern U.S. in July 1993, a process upset caused a release of excess spent pulping liquor to
the POTW, which then caused a fish kill. The resulting costs for cleanup and mill shutdown
were approximately equal to the cost of full implementation of BMPs at the mill.
2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
In the BMP regulation, EPA is requiring mills with pulp production Subpart B and E
Subcategories to develop and implement BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills
and to control intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap and turpentine. These BMPs
apply to direct and indirect discharging mills within these subcategories and are intended to
reduce wastewater loadings of color, oxygen-demanding substances, and non-chlorinated toxic
compounds and hazardous substances in mill wastewater, with incidental reductions in
conventional water pollutants and certain air pollutants.
EPA’s legal authority to promulgate this BMP regulation is found in Section 304(e),
Section 307(b) and (c), Section 308(a), Section 402(a)(1)(B), Section 402(a)(2) and Section
501(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR §
122.44(k). This BMP regulation is also consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. § 13101, et seq. For further discussion of EPA's legal authority to require mills to
develop and implement BMPs, including the information collection requirements discussed in
this document, see the BMP Technical Support Document (BMP TSD, DCN 14489).
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
The primary users of the information generated through BMP Plans will be the owners
and operators of the Subpart B and E pulp and paper mills. EPA intends that the data collected
(in the form of BMP monitoring reports) will be used by mill operators to track the effectiveness
and progress of BMP implementation through comparisons with action levels established by the
mill. Under the regulation, whenever monitoring results exceed action levels for particular
periods, the mill must complete an investigation or corrective action, as appropriate.
EPA also expects that the monitoring reports required by the BMP regulations will be
used by NPDES and pretreatment control authorities to determine compliance with the
2

Best Management Practices ICR

3

regulation. EPA anticipates that State and local control authorities will conduct detailed
technical reviews of BMP Plans only in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance
with BMP conditions contained in the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.
3.
NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(a)

Nonduplication

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following
sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere:
•
•
•

the EPA Information Systems Inventory,
the Government Information Locator System (GILS), and
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicative reporting requirements.
EPA has examined a similar reporting requirement for notice of spills under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the requirements of this regulation.
The requirements for reporting of pollutant releases under RCRA is different than reporting of
spills or losses of spent pulping liquor, soap or turpentine outside the immediate process areas
under this regulation. EPA has concluded that there is no other way to obtain the compliance
assessment information addressed in this ICR.
3(b)

Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission

EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior to formal submission to OMB. EPA published
a formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 (69 FR 52883-52888). EPA
received no comments.
3(c)

Consultations

EPA had extensive discussions with the regulated community and selected federal and
State NPDES permitting authorities regarding development of this regulation and the attendant
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
3(d)

Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

The regulation requires collection of daily influent-to-treatment data. Most mill
operators collect such data independent of this requirement for purposes of monitoring and
optimizing wastewater treatment plant operations. Because spill, leaks and losses of spent
pulping liquors can and do occur frequently and at any time, less frequent monitoring would not
provide the timely information to mill operators to identify and respond to a spill, leak or loss
event.

3

Best Management Practices ICR

3(e)

4

General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.6 and 1320.12.
3(f) Confidentiality
EPA does not expect that confidential business information or trade secrets will be
required from mill operators as part of this ICR. In the event that the information submitted in
conjunction with this ICR is claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) by the mill
owner or operator, the information would then be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 when EPA
is the permitting authority and applicable State and local government rules and regulations
governing CBI when States or local governments are the permitting or pretreatment control
authorities. Any mills that may consider asserting CBI claims should do so carefully as they
may be asked to support any such claims at a later date.
3(g)

Sensitive Questions

The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.
4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4(a) Respondents and SIC Codes

The respondents for this ICR will be approximately 94 direct and indirect discharging
Subpart B and E pulp mills in the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category (SIC
2611, 2631) (NAICS 32211,322121, 322122, 32213). Government respondents are estimated to
be 34 State and local authorities (24 NPDES and pretreatment approval-authorized States and 10
local pretreatment control authorities) for preparation of new NPDES permits and pretreatment
conditions for implementing the BMP regulation and conducting detailed technical reviews of
BMP Plans in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with BMP conditions
contained in the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.
4(b) Information Requested
The BMP regulations at 40 CFR 430.03 include the following major components:
(1) development, review and certification of a BMP plan; (2) amendment and periodic review of
the BMP plan; (3) reporting of spills; (4) additional monitoring and reporting; and (5) additional
recordkeeping. See 40 CFR 430.03(c) through (i) and the BMP TSD for more detailed
information on the requirements. The development, review, and certification of a BMP plan is
an initial one-time component of the BMP regulations, and the associated burden was already
accounted for in the original ICR (No. 1829.01). Therefore, that burden is not included in this
renewal ICR.
(1) Development, review and certification of a BMP plan [§430.03(d) and (f)]:
Central to the BMP regulation is the development of a BMP plan. This plan is intended
to be the initial and ongoing BMP planning and implementation tool for mills. The BMP plan
4

Best Management Practices ICR

5

must, at a minimum, include programs: (a) to identify and repair leaking equipment; (b) to track
equipment repairs; (c) to train personnel; (d) to report and evaluate spills; (e) to review planned
mill modifications; and (f) to establish wastewater treatment system influent action levels
(including an initial six-month monitoring program).
Also, as part of the BMP plan development, each mill must conduct a detailed
engineering review of the pulping and chemical recovery areas to determine the magnitude and
routing of potential leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap and
turpentine and to determine the adequacy of containment and collection facilities (see 40 CFR
430.03 (d) (3) for additional details). The BMP plan and any amendments require review by the
senior technical manager and certification by the mill manager.
(2) Amendment and periodic review of a BMP Plan [§430.03(e)]:
Owners or operators must amend their BMP Plans whenever there is a change in mill
design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or
spills of spent pulping liquor, soap or turpentine from the immediate process areas.
Notwithstanding this requirement, owners or operators must complete a review and evaluation of
their BMP Plans at least once every five years and amend the plan within three months of such
review, if warranted. As mentioned above, any BMP plan amendments require review by the
senior technical manager and certification by the mill manager.
(3) Reporting of spills [§430.03(c)(5)]:
Owners or operators are required to prepare brief reports of spills of spent pulping liquor,
soap or turpentine not contained in the immediate process area (e.g., a failure of the management
practices and control systems identified by the owner or operator in the BMP Plan). The report
must list the equipment items involved, the circumstances leading to the incident, the
effectiveness of corrective actions taken and plans to implement future changes. These reports
must be maintained by the mill owner or operator for three years and they need only be
submitted to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority upon request.
(4) Additional monitoring and reporting [§430.03 (c)(3), (g), (h) and (i)]:
Mills are required to operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mill
determines are necessary to detect and control leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine. See 40 CFR 430.03(c)(3). As part of this requirement, all
mills (with the exception of new sources) are required to perform two six-month monitoring
programs in order to determine the characteristics (or action levels) of their wastewater treatment
system influent. See 40 CFR 430.03(h). (New sources are required to perform only one
six-month monitoring program for this purpose. See 40 CFR 430.03(h)(5).) All mills are also
required to perform additional monitoring to revise those action levels after any change in mill
design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or
spills or spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from the immediate process area. See 40 CFR
430.03(h)(6). The regulation also requires all mills to conduct daily monitoring of wastewater
treatment system influent for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness
of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses. See 40 CFR 430.03(i).

5

Best Management Practices ICR

6

Mill operators are required to provide their NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authorities reports of the monitoring required by the BMP regulation. See 40 CFR 430.03(i)(4).
The reports must include a summary of the monitoring results, the number and dates of
exceedances of the applicable action levels, and brief descriptions of any corrective actions taken
to respond to such exceedances. Submission of such reports shall be at the frequency established
by the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, but in no case less than once per year.
(5) Recordkeeping requirements [§430.03(g)]:
The regulation requires that certain equipment repair records, records of employee
training, reports of spills outside the immediate process area, and records of monitoring
conducted as part of the BMP program be maintained for three years.
4(c) Respondent Activities
Mill respondent activities include the following:
C

Preparing basic information. This includes reviewing regulatory and permit
requirements; conducting initial and refresher employee training; developing and
certifying the BMP Plan; tracking equipment repair; conducting influent-totreatment monitoring; preparing reports of spill incidents outside the immediate
process area; and, making reports to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authority.

C

Maintaining records. All mills in Subparts B and E must keep records of
monitoring information, equipment repair, employee training, and spill reports as
required by the regulation.

State permitting and local pretreatment control authority activities include the following:
C

Preparing NPDES permit and pretreatment conditions. This includes reviewing
the development of each mill’s BMP plans in accordance with 40 CFR 430.03. State
permitting and local pretreatment control authority respondents are responsible for
the incorporation of BMP provisions in NPDES permits and pretreatment conditions.

C

Periodic Review. State and local respondents are authorized to conduct periodic
review of monitoring reports submitted by each mill and perform compliance
reviews. Detailed technical reviews of BMP Plans may be performed in the event
the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with BMP conditions contained in
the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.

The initial one-time burden associated with mill respondents conducting initial employee
training and developing and certifying the BMP plan and State permitting and local pretreatment
control authority activities in preparing NPDES permit and pretreatment conditions was already
accounted for in the original ICR (No. 1829.01) and, therefore, is not included in this renewal
ICR.

6

Best Management Practices ICR

7

5.
THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a)

Agency Activities

Upon approval of this renewal ICR, permittees must continue to maintain records as
described above in Section 4(c) and at least annually, must submit to the NPDES or pretreatment
control authority a report summarizing the results of daily monitoring, the number and dates of
any exceedances of action levels and corrective actions taken when action levels are exceeded.
The permitting authority can be either an approved NPDES State or one of EPA’s regional
offices. The permitting authority or pretreatment control authority is authorized to conduct
compliance audits of facility records, review the data, and where necessary, conduct follow-up
actions. Follow-up activities may include informal contact with the permittee (by telephone or
letter) to discuss the cause of any exceedances of action levels and responses taken to correct the
exceedences. Because the requirements to implement the BMPs and maintain records will be
incorporated in a mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism as enforeceable
conditions, the permitting authority will be responsible for assessing whether the mill is properly
maintaining records (including the BMP Plan) and thus, performing equipment repairs,
employee training and responding to any exceedance events in a timely manner. Review of
monitoring records may also be helpful to the permit writers in the development of future
NPDES permit conditions.
The extent to which EPA reviews data will depend on available resources and the
specific reviewing procedures of the permitting authority (State or EPA region). In NPDES
States, State environmental agencies generally review permittee data. EPA regions may also
review data from major permittees in NPDES States while performing program oversight
functions, particularly since the assessment of compliance is subjective.
5(b)

Collection Methodology and Management

As with the minimum effluent monitoring requirements associated with the Cluster Rule,
mill owners and operators are required to maintain information for in-mill use to assess BMP
effectiveness and for preparation of the summary report of daily monitoring. The regulation
provides a framework for compliance, but mill owner and operators can develop the necessary
data collection and management protocols to achieve an effective BMP program. EPA expects
that mill owners and operators will most likely use existing in-mill and effluent monitoring
capabilities to perform the daily monitoring and existing computer capabilities to develop and
maintain records.
5(c)

Small Entity Flexibility

EPA has already certified that the Cluster Rules, including the BMP requirements will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is
used in the RFA (see Section X.C. of the Preamble to the final Cluster Rules published in the
Federal Register on April 15,1998 (see 63 FR 18611)

7

Best Management Practices ICR

5(d)

8

Collection Schedule

The majority of information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to
coincide with existing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (e.g., Discharge
Monitoring Reports), although some recordkeeping may be non-routine, such as spill reporting.
6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
6(a)

Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

Burden and costs will vary based upon mill complexity, see Table 1. Tables 2 presents
estimates of the recurring mill respondent burdens for labor hours and costs associated with this
ICR. The assumptions made are listed in each Table. A summary of the mill respondents'
burden hours and costs is presented in Table 3. A brief description of the basis for the burden
estimates is presented below.
(1) Development, review and certification of a BMP plan:
Development of a site-specific BMP plan is a one-time initial burden. As part of the
BMP plan development, mills must also establish a training program for technical personnel.
This training program must include both an initial training effort and refresher training, which at
a minimum, must be performed annually. The burden associated with the development of the
BMP plan and initial training were already accounted for in the original ICR (No. 1829.01) and
are, therefore, not included in the burden estimates of this renewal ICR. The refresher training is
based on bi-annual effort of four hours each, including nine operators and one consultant acting
as trainer. The total burden for refresher training per mill is estimated to be 72 hours of operator
effort (at $32.81 per hour) and eight hours of consultant engineering effort (at $64.58 per hour).1
(2) Amendment and periodic review of a BMP Plan:
EPA anticipates less than 50 hours of mill labor per amendment and has based the ICR
burden on an assumption that each mill would need to amend its BMP plan twice every five
years for an annual burden of 20 hours, estimating 18 hours of mill engineer effort (at $64.58 per
hour) and two hours of management effort (at $88.49 per hour), which is included in the annual
estimates presented in Tables 2 and 3.2

1

Estimates for operator and engineer labor costs were prepared using industry-specific labor rates identical
to those used for the EPA ICR Number 1878.01, included overhead and fringe benefits, and adjusted to January
2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index. To verify the validity of the adjusted rates EPA obtained national
industry-specific wage estimates for the pulp, paper, and paperboard mills from the Labor Department. Noting that
the Labor Department wages were lower, EPA decided to apply the more conservative estimates from the previous
ICR.
2

Estimates for management labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100 - Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage
for General and Operation Managers (SOC Code 11-1021), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits
and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is 88.49.

8

Best Management Practices ICR

9

(3) Reporting of spills:
EPA anticipates that the burden of preparing a spill report is approximately four hours
and can be conducted by a mill engineer (at $64.58 per hour). ICR burden is calculated on an
annual basis using an assumption of one spill per mill per month and is included in the annual
estimates presented in Table 2 and 3.
(4) Additional monitoring and reporting:
Mills are required to operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mills
determine are necessary to detect and control leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine. The burden for designing, testing, and operating the
monitoring system, expressed in the form of costs, is included in the compliance cost estimates
developed for the regulation (see Table 9.2 of the BMP TSD, DCN 14489).
In addition, all mills with the exception of new sources are required to perform two
six-month monitoring programs in order to determine the characteristics (or action levels) of
their wastewater treatment system effluent. See 40 CFR 430.03(h). (New sources are required
to perform only one six-month monitoring program for this purpose.) All mills are also required
to perform additional monitoring to revise those action levels after any change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or spills or
spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from the immediate process area. The effort required to
implement the initial monitoring program and perform the associated statistical analysis to
establish the action levels is included in the compliance cost estimates developed for the
regulation, and the burden to perform monitoring to revise those action levels is included in the
incremental monitoring burden discussed below.
The regulation also requires all mills to conduct daily monitoring of wastewater
treatment system influent for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness
of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses. EPA estimates the burden
associated with this monitoring to be an increment of one additional hour per day of operator
time over existing burden imposed by minimum monitoring; this increment is included in the
annual estimates shown in Tables 2 and 3. Costs for monitoring equipment were included as
initial capital costs in the original ICR (No. 1829.01). Therefore, these one-time costs are not
included in the burden estimates of this renewal ICR.
Mill operators are required to provide their NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authorities reports of the monitoring required by the BMP regulation. Submission of such reports
shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, but
in no case less than once per year. EPA has based the burden estimates on a semi-annual
reporting frequency and estimates that each report will take 16 hours to complete, based on 14
hours of mill engineer effort and two hours of management effort (also included in estimates
presented in Tables 2 and 3).
(5) Recordkeeping requirements:
Burden estimates for recordkeeping are based on an incremental level of effort to comply
with BMP requirements consisting of two to four hours per month for the operators/shift
9

Best Management Practices ICR

10

supervisors over current shift log recordkeeping (at $32.81per hour), two to four hours per
months for mill engineers (at $64.58 per hour), and two hours per month for clerical support (at
$18.42 per hour). These burden estimates are also included in the annual estimates presented in
Tables 2 and 3 .3
(6) NPDES permit provisions, pretreatment conditions and periodic review
The initial burden to State NPDES permitting and pretreatment control authorities for
preparation of NPDES permit provisions and pretreatment conditions for implementing the BMP
regulation was already accounted for in the new ICR. Therefore, this burden is not included in
this renewal ICR. For the 82 facilities located in states with NPDES authority and the 10
facilities located in pretreatment control authorities EPA estimates an incremental ten hours per
year per facility for reviewing periodic (e.g., annual or semi-annual) monitoring reports and
conducting compliance reviews.
Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department
figures adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average
annual salary for Federal and State employees is $47,112; this is equivalent to the salary of a
GS-9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is
$22.65. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent
(EPA ICR Handbook), or $13.59 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $36.24 ($22.65
+ $13.59).
Estimates for local pretreatment control authority employees (i.e., POTW employees)
were based on the 2002 US Labor department figures for the wages and salaries value for State
and local government workers adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index
plus a 50 percent overhead burden; this is equivalent to an hourly rate of $33.36 ($22.24 +
$11.12).

Table 1. Summary of Mill Status
CATEGORY
Kraft & Soda
Sulfite
Total Mills

Simple
41
10
51

Moderately Complex
30
0
30

3

Complex
13
0
13

Total
84
10
94

Estimates for clerical labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100 - Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for File Clerks
(SOC Code 43-4071), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars
with the Employment Cost Index, is $18.42.

10

Best Management Practices ICR

11

Table 2. Mill Labor for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Training (hours)
Item
Simple
Amendment and Review of BMP
Plan
Reporting of Spills
Additional Monitoring and
Reporting
Recordkeeping
Refresher Training
TOTAL

Kraft & Soda
Moderately
Complex
Complex

Sulfite
Total

Simple

Total

TOTAL
HOURS

820

600

260

1,680

200

200

1880

1,968

1,440

624

4,032

480

480

4512

16,277

11,910

5,161

33,348

3,970

3,970

37318

2,952
3,280
25,297

2,880
2,400
19,230

1,560
1,040
8,645

7,392
6,720
53,172

720
800
6,170

720
800
6,170

8112
7520
59,342

Table 3. Mill Costs for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring,
Recordkeeping and Training
Item
Simple
Amendment and
Review of BMP Plan
Reporting of Spills
Additional Monitoring
and Reporting
Recordkeeping
Refresher Training
TOTAL

$54,916

Kraft & Soda
Moderately
Complex
Complex
$40,183
$17,412

Sulfite
Total

Simple

Total

$112,511

$13,394

$13,394

$127,093
$579,652

$92,995
$424,136

$40,298
$183,792

$260,387
$1,187,579

$30,998
$141,379

$30,998
$141,379

$113,957
$118,037
$993,655

$118,444
$86,369
$762,127

$66,518
$37,426
$345,446

$298,919
$241,833
$2,101,229

$27,794
$28,790
$242,355

$27,794
$28,790
$242,355

TOTAL
COSTS
$125,905
$291,385
$1,328,958
$326,713
$270,623
$2,343,584

Table 4. Recurring Mill Respondent Burden and Costs
Status
Kraft & Soda
Simple
Moderately Complex
Complex
Total Kraft & Soda
Sulfite
Simple
Total Sulfite
TOTAL MILLS

6(b)

Total Labor Hours

Total Recurring Costs

25,297
19,230
8,645
53,172

$993,655
$762,127
$345,446
$2,101,229

6,170
6,170
59,342

$242,355
$242,355
$2,343,584

Estimating Agency Burden

The initial burden to EPA from non-authorized State NPDES permitting and pretreatment
control authorities for preparation of NPDES permit provisions and pretreatment conditions for
implementing the BMP regulation was already accounted for in the new ICR. Therefore, this
burden is not included in this renewal ICR. For the 2 facilities located in states without NPDES
11

Best Management Practices ICR

12

authority EPA estimates an incremental ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic
(e.g., annual or semi-annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews, for a total
of 20 hours annually.
EPA estimates an incremental labor burden of approximately eight hours per facility for a
total of 752 hours annually. This burden accounts for anticipated support of State and local
authority efforts described in Section 6(a). The estimated incremental labor burden for the BMP
regulation is 772 (752 + 20) hours. Using the hourly labor rate of $36.24 (see Section 6(a)(6)),
recurring Agency costs are estimated at $27,977. A summary of the Agency burden hours and
costs is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA
Category

Total Labor Hours

Respondents - Annual Burden
Kraft & Soda Mills
Sulfite Mills
Total

Total Costs

53,172
6,170
59,342

$2,101,229
$242,355
$2,343,584

820
100

$29,717
$3,336

772

$27,977

States & Local Governments Annual Burden
States
Local Governments (pretreatment)
EPA
Annual Burden

6(c) Bottom Line Burden and Costs Tables
The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the
hours and costs incurred for all activities. There are no Operating and Maintenance costs
associated with this Information Collection Request.

(1) Respondent Tally
The bottom line respondent (mills, State permitting and local pretreatment authorities)
tally is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (2004 Dollars)
Category

Number of
Respondents

Total Hours
Per Year

Total Labor
Cost Per Year

Respondents - Subpart B and E mills

94

59,342

$2,343,584

Respondents - State Athorities

24

820

$29,717

Respondents -Local authorities

10

100

$3,336

Total Respondents

128

60,262

$2,376,637

12

Best Management Practices ICR

13

(2) Agency Tally
The bottom line Agency tally is presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary ( 2000 Dollars)
Category

Total Hours Per Year

Total Labor Cost Per Year

772

$27,977

Agency

6(d) Reasons for Changes in Burden
As this is a renewal information collection, the change in burden for this collection
includes adjusting from 2000 to 2004 dollars and account for new NPDES authorized states.
6(e) Burden Statement
The recurring burden for a mill to periodically review and amend the BMP plan, prepare
spill reports, perform additional monitoring, hold refresher training, and conduct recordkeeping
and reporting is estimated to be 617, 641 and 665 hours annually per mill for simple, moderately
complex and complex mills, respectively. The total recurring cost for mills associated with the
BMP requirements is estimated at $2,343,811
The recurring burden to State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at
ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic (e.g., annual or semi-annual) monitoring
reports and conducting compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for State NPDES and
pretreatment control authorities is estimated at $29,716 and $3,336 respectively.
The recurring burden to EPA is estimated at ten hours per year per facility in non NPDES
authorized states and eight hours per year per facility for support of State and local authority
efforts in reviewing periodic (e.g., annual or semi-annual) monitoring reports and conducting
compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for EPA is estimated at $27,977.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use
of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
13

Best Management Practices ICR

14

Docket ID No. OW-2004-0023, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An
electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the
docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (OW-20040023) and OMB control number (2040-0207) in any correspondence.

14

MILESTONES PLANS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURING CATEGORY
(40 CFR PART 430) (Renewal)

EPA ICR # 1877.03
OMB Control Number 2040-0202

June 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

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

2.

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

3.

NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA .............................................................................................................
3(a). Nonduplication .............................................................................................
3(b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ..........................
3(c). Consultations ................................................................................................
3(d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection .............................................................
3(e). General Guidelines .......................................................................................
3(f). Confidentiality ..............................................................................................
3(g). Sensitive Questions ......................................................................................

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4

4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ................... 4
4(a). Respondents/SIC Codes ............................................................................... 4
4(b). Information Requested ................................................................................. 4

5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ........................... 5
5(a). Agency Activities .......................................................................................... 5
5(b). Collection Methodology and Management ................................................... 6
5(c). Small Entity Flexibility ................................................................................. 6
5(d). Collection Schedule ...................................................................................... 6

6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ...............
6(a). Estimating Respondent Burden ....................................................................
6(b). Estimating Respondent Costs ......................................................................
6(c). Estimating Agency Burden and Costs .........................................................
6(d). Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost ...............
6(e). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ...............................................
6(f). Reasons for Change in Burden .....................................................................
6(g). Burden Statement .........................................................................................

ii

6
6
8
9
10
11
12
12

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5

Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden ............................ 7
Breakdown Estimate of Hours/Mill ....................................................... 8
Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs ............................... 9
Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost ......................................... 11
Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based
on 29 Mills in 2000 Dollars ................................................................... 12
Table 6 Bottom Line Burden and Costs (annualized)............................................12

iii

1.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a).

Title of the Information Collection

ICR: Milestones Plans of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 430) (EPA ICR No. 1877.03)
1(b).

Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to
the eligible community (direct discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills) and
NPDES permitting authorities for activities associated with the development of a Milestones
Plan, which is required as part of a Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
(VATIP) established under the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards (40 CFR Part 430) portion of the Cluster Rule promulgated on April 15, 1998. The
Milestones Plan is required only of those mills that voluntarily choose to enroll in the incentives
program. This is a renewal ICR.
The VATIP (40 CFR 430.24(b)) is intended to encourage existing and new direct
discharging mills to move beyond today’s baseline BAT and NSPS technologies toward the
“mill of the future,” which EPA believes will have a minimum impact on the environment. In
order to facilitate achievement of the ultimate effluent limitations required by this Incentives
Program, existing mills that choose to enroll in this voluntary program are required to submit
plans (referred to as “Milestones Plans”) detailing the strategy the mill will follow to develop
and implement the technologies or processes it intends to use to achieve the requirements of the
program. See 40 CFR 430.24(c). New sources enrolling in the Incentives Program are not
required to develop Milestones Plans because they must achieve the ultimate VATIP standards
as soon as they commence discharge.
The purpose of the Milestones Plan is to provide information necessary for the
development of interim limitations or permit conditions under 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2) that lead to
achievement of the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations codified at 40 CFR
430.24(b)(3) and (4). Each Milestones Plan must be developed by the participating mill and
submitted to the NPDES permitting authority (i.e., EPA or the State, if it is authorized to
administer the NPDES permitting program). EPA expects the permitting authority to use the
information contained in the Milestones Plan to establish enforceable permit limitations and
conditions for the participating mill. These milestones would also provide valuable benchmarks
for reasonable inquiries into progress being made by participating mills toward achievement of
the interim and ultimate effluent limitations. EPA’s legal authority to require such Milestones
Plans in effluent limitations guidelines and standards is found in Section 308(a) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). For additional information on the VATIP, see the Technical Support
Document for the Voluntary Advanced Incentives Program (EPA-821-R-97-014; DCN 14488).
For the regulated community, the burden and costs of the Milestones Plan are those
1

associated with its development. For the government, the burden and costs are those sustained
by the NPDES permitting authority and EPA in reviewing the Milestones Plan, deriving and
enforcing interim permit requirements and generally tracking the mill’s implementation of the
Milestones Plan.
2.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a).

Need/Authority for the Collection

The Incentives Program requires achievement of ultimate effluent limitations that go
beyond the baseline BAT limitations. Mills that choose to enroll in the program are given
additional time to achieve those ultimate effluent limitations. During this additional time period
during which the mill is preparing to meet the ultimate limitations, the regulation requires
participating mills to meet interim limitations or permit conditions. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2).
In order to determine interim limitations or permit conditions that will take into account the
special circumstances at each mill while at the same time promote timely achievement by the
mill of the ultimate limitations, the permitting authority needs to know the details of how the
mill is planning to develop and implement the technologies and processes to achieve the ultimate
limitations. The Milestones Plan, prepared by the mill, will provide this information. Even
when not used as the basis for enforceable permit conditions, the Milestones Plan will also
provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made toward
achievement of the ultimate limitations and will help ensure that mills enrolled in the program
are making a good-faith effort to fulfill the requirements of the program.
EPA’s legal authority to require Milestones Plans for meeting effluent limitations is
found in Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act. Section 308(a) gives the EPA Administrator the
authority to require the owner or operator of any point source (e.g., a pulp and paper mill) to
make reports or provide such other information that the Administrator determines is necessary to
(1) develop any effluent limitation or other limitation under the Act, (2) determine compliance
with effluent limitations, or (3) carry out the NPDES permit program. The Milestones Plan fits
all three criteria for the reasons set forth in paragraph 2(b) below.
2(b).

Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The Milestones Plan will assist the permitting authority (i.e., the State or EPA) to set
appropriate interim limitations and permit conditions for that interim period when the mill is
preparing to achieve the ultimate limitations. An individualized Milestones Plan will make it
easier for the permitting authority to account for any unique situations at the mill and to provide
appropriate flexibility for the mill.
The Milestones Plan will also enable the permitting authority to track the progress being
made by the mill to achieve the interim and ultimate effluent limitations and to enable the
permitting authority to recognize if and when a mill is not making expected progress toward
fulfilling the requirements of the program and take appropriate action. By advancing these
2

purposes, the Milestones Plan thus helps to carry out the NPDES permit program.
3.

NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(a).

Nonduplication

The information in the Milestones Plan is necessarily mill-specific and, to EPA’s
knowledge has never been collected by another source. Therefore, none of the information to be
collected by the Milestones Plan is available elsewhere. Moreover, although EPA expects that
many participating mills will already be developing such plans for their own planning purposes,
the permitting authority would have no access to this information without this information
collection request.
3(b).

Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior to formal submission to OMB. EPA published
a formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 (69 FR 52883-52888). EPA
received no comments.
3(c).

Consultations

EPA has discussed this information collection with the State NPDES permitting
authorities.
3(d).

Effects of less Frequent Collection

Since the Milestones Plan is a one-time information collection and not a collection with
periodic reporting, consideration of the effects of less frequent collection is not relevant.
3(e)

General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.6 and 1320.12.
3(f)

Confidentiality

EPA received two comments on the proposed Milestones Plan regulation (63 FR 18796,
April 15, 1998) indicating that a mill may wish to claim as CBI the technologies or processes by
which it intends to achieve the ultimate VATIP limitations. Therefore, EPA promulgated
language in the final rule to provide that, in those situations, a mill may claim that portion of the
Milestones Plan as confidential (64 FR 36582, July 7, 1999). Such claims are handled pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority and applicable State rules and regulations
governing CBI when States are the permitting authorities. EPA also added language to the final
3

regulations that requires mills asserting a CBI claim to prepare a public summary of the
confidential portion of the plan and to submit that summary to the permitting authority along
with the Milestones Plan. This requirement allows the public, on request, to obtain information
about the mill’s progress in achieving its VATIP limitations.
3(g)

Sensitive Questions

No sensitive questions are anticipated in this information collection.
4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4(a)

Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

The respondents will be those existing, direct-discharging bleached papergrade kraft and
soda pulp and paper mills that have chosen to enroll in the VATIP. The SIC code associated
with these potential respondents is 2611 (pulp mills). The associated NAICS code is 322110.
4(b).

Information Requested

An existing mill choosing to enroll in the VATIP must submit a Milestones Plan.
(i) Data items:
•

A Milestones Plan required under 40 CFR 430.24(c).

--

The Milestones Plan must describe each anticipated new
technology component or process modification the mill intends to
implement in order to achieve the ultimate effluent limitations (i.e.,
the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits). This
information is required under 40 CFR 430.24(c)(1) (see DCN
14488).

--

In addition, the Milestones Plan must include a master schedule (1)
showing the sequence of implementing the new technology
components or process modifications and (2) identifying critical
path relationships. This information is required under 40 CFR
430.24(c)(2).

--

For each individual new technology component or process
modification, the Milestones Plan must include a schedule that
identifies the anticipated dates when associated construction,
installation, and operational “shakedown” will be initiated, the
anticipated dates those steps will be completed, and the anticipated
4

date that the full Advanced Technology process or individual
component will be fully demonstrated as operational. EPA also
intends that the Milestones Plan describe the anticipated
improvements in effluent quality and reductions in effluent
quantity as measured at the bleach plant and at the end of the pipe.

(ii)

5.

--

The schedule must also identify the anticipated dates of
initiation and completion of associated research, process
development and mill trials when applicable, i.e., when the mill
intends to employ technologies or process modifications that are
not commercially available or demonstrated on a full-scale basis at
the time the Milestones Plan is developed. This “R&D Schedule,”
which should be part of the Master Schedule, should show major
milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or process
change will be available for mill implementation. This
information is required under 40 CFR 430.24 (c)(3)(i).

--

The Milestones Plan must also include contingency plans in the
event that any of the technologies or processes need to be
adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the
ultimate effluent limitations are achieved by deadlines specified in
40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). This information is required under 40
CFR 430.24(c)(3)(iii).

Respondent Activities:
•

Preparation of the Milestones Plan, containing the information described
above.

•

Signature by the responsible corporate officer as defines by 40 CFR
122.22, and submittal of the Milestones Plan to the permitting authority.
These activities are required by 40 CFR 430.24(c) and (c)(4).

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a).

AGENCY ACTIVITIES

Agency (i.e., permitting authority) activities associated with the Milestones Plans consist
of the following:
•

Review Milestones Plans for completeness.

•

Consider the information in those plans when establishing enforceable interim
5

effluent limitations and permit conditions that facilitate the achievement of the
ultimate effluent limitations; include reopener clauses to allow the permitting
authority to adjust the permits to reflect the results of research, process
development, mill trials, and possible contingencies.
•

5(b).

Monitor progress of the participating mills toward achieving the ultimate
effluent limitations, using the milestones in the Milestones Plan as
benchmarks. Take appropriate action if and when progress falters.

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

After having enrolled in the VATIP, a particular mill is required to submit the Milestones
Plan to the permitting authority, which would consider the Plan as described in 5(a). The
Milestones Plan is intended to be a dynamic document that will be adjusted to reflect the results
of research, process development, mill trials, etc. EPA expects the Plan to be maintained on file
by the mill and the permitting authority. Public access will be managed through standard
procedures under the codified authorities (see 3(f) above).
5(c).

SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

EPA considered less burdensome information collection mechanisms for small entities,
but chose not to alter the collection procedure for the following reasons:

5(d).

•

This information collection will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA has determined that, of all the pulp
and paper mills that are eligible for the VATIP only three mills are small
businesses, and EPA does not believe this is a substantial number as that term
is used in EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final Pulp and Paper
Cluster Rules. (See the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).

•

Moreover, these three mills will be subject to the information collection only if
they choose to enroll in the VATIP.

•

Finally, the cost of this information collection to any small entity choosing to
enroll in the VATIP is not substantial. EPA has calculated the cost to be
between $4,000 and $24,000 per mill.

COLLECTION SCHEDULE

This is a one-time information collection. The participating mill must submit the
Milestones Plan by the date the mill applies for its NPDES permit limitations.
6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6

6(a).

ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

The respondent burden of this information collection has been estimated by calculating the
labor requirements (in hours) of preparing typical Milestones Plans for each of the three possible
technology tiers in the VATIP. The labor estimates assume that the Milestones Plans will be
prepared by mill or corporate process engineering staff, with senior management input. These
burden estimates cover the total time and effort expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
and disclose or provide the information collection. This includes the time needed to review
regulations and instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing or providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Additionally, for Tiers II and III plan development, a budget is included to perform
scoping studies to determine implementation at the mills. The estimates do not reflect the cost of
detailed engineering studies or feasibility studies that a company may perform when investigating
whether to pursue the development and installation of advanced technology, nor do the estimates
include the labor hours related to internal corporate discussions about a decision to enroll in the
incentives program. Such activities are considered part of the corporate strategic planning
function and are not considered part of the burden associated with the Milestones Plan.
The labor estimates are based on the anticipated level of complexity for each of the tiers.
The estimates reflect the greater complexity of higher tiers and were prepared by an EPA
contractor with much experience preparing plans and schedules for projects with similar
complexities. The estimate for a Tier I Milestones Plan assumes the mill will implement readily
available technology (e.g., oxygen delignification and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution)
and will not perform research and development ( R & D) activities. The estimate for a Tier II
Milestones Plan assumes the mill will conduct one research and development project related to
condensate reuse, but otherwise will implement readily available technology (e.g., a two-stage
oxygen delignification system followed by ozone bleaching and 100 percent chlorine dioxide
substitution). Additionally, the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of
producing a schedule for this project. The estimate for a Tier III Milestones Plan assumes the
mill will conduct six research and development projects designed to upgrade condensate quality
from evaporators, to improve treatment of condensates, to provide advanced process control, to
optimize water balance strategies to achieve nearly closed loop processing, and to remove
minerals and/or chloride; the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of
producing a schedule for this project. The following tables summarize the estimated industry
respondent burden:
Table 1
Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden

7

Technology Tier

Hours / Mill

Tier I

56

Tier II

154

Tier III

328

Table 2
Breakdown Estimate of Hours / Mill
Milestones Plan
Element
Overview of Strategy

Tier I Hours
(X + Y)a

Tier II Hours
(X + Y)a

Tier III Hours
(X + Y)a

12 + 4

20 + 8

24 + 8

10 + 2

20 + 4

32 + 8

Master Schedule

20 + 4

46 + 8

64 + 16

R & D Schedule

----

24 + 8

112 + 40

Appendix of
Documentationb

4+0

16 + 0

24 + 0

Subtotal Hours

46 + 10

126 + 28

256 + 72

56

154

328

Description of New
Technology
Components or
Process
Modifications

Total Hours
a

X = process engineering hours

b

Tier I: Includes vendor documentation or preliminary engineering studies.
Tier II: Includes the above (for Tier I) plus feasibility studies, research proposals and
reports, and review of literature on minimum effluent technology.
Tier III: Includes the above (for Tier II) plus review of literature on closed-cycle
technology.

6(b).

Y = senior management hours

ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

The respondent costs of this information collection have been estimated by taking the
labor hours (in Table 2 above) and multiplying them by the appropriate wage rates applicable to
process engineering time and senior management time. EPA estimates an average hourly cost
8

(labor plus overhead) of $45.64 for process engineering time and $ 88.49 for senior management
time1. (There are no capital costs or O&M costs associated with this information collection.)
The following Table 3 summarizes the estimated industry respondent costs based on labor
effort:
Table 3
Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs
Technology
Tier

Engineering Hours /
Mill

Management Hours /
Mill

Costs / Milla

Tier I

46

10

$3,000

Tier II

126

28

$8,272

Tier III

256

72

$18,141

a

Assumes $45.64 and $88.49 per hour for process engineering time and senior
management time, respectively (labor plus overhead).

Additionally, for Tiers II and III, an allowance for scoping studies was included. For Tier
II, EPA estimated approximately $14,000 for each scoping study, which may be performed by a
consultant. A scoping study estimate of $26,000 was applied to Tier III. The extended costs,
including labor and the scoping study estimate, are reflected in Table 4.
6(c).

ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COSTS

Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department
figures adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average
annual salary for Federal and State employees is $47,112; this is equivalent to the salary of a
GS-9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is
$22.65. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent
(EPA ICR Handbook), or $13.59 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $36.24 ($22.65 +
$13.59).
EPA estimates the initial burden to State and local NPDES permitting authorities for the
review of the Milestones Plan to be an average of 16 hours per mill respondent. With 29 mills
anticipated to enter the program (see Section 6(d) below), the total initial State NPDES permitting
1

Estimates for management labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100 - Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage
for General and Operation Managers (SOC Code 11-1021), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits
and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is $ 88.49. The mean hourly wage for
engineers, including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the
Employment Cost Index, is $45.64.

9

authority burden is estimated at 464 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial
labor costs are estimated at $16,815 for State permitting authorities. It is anticipated that no one
State permitting authority will incur the entire burden, because anticipated mill respondents are
located in different States. There exists no more than four anticipated mill respondents in any one
State. Therefore, the maximum initial burden that any one State permitting authority is 64 hours
for a cost of $2,319.
EPA estimates the recurring burden to State permitting authorities to be an average of 6
hours per year per mill for periodic review of the mill's progress in implementation of the
Milestones Plan and to take appropriate action if and when progress falters (see section 5(a)
above). The total recurring burden for State permitting authorities is estimated at 174 hours per
year at a total cost of $6,305. The maximum recurring burden any one State permitting authority
could incur is 24 hours per year at a cost of $870. This maximum burden represents no more than
14% of the total estimated recurring burden.
The initial Agency burden is estimated to be an average of 20 hours per mill respondent.
With 29 mills anticipated to enter the program (see Section 6(d) below), the total initial Agency
burden is estimated at 580 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial labor
costs are estimated at $21,019 for the Agency. EPA estimates recurring burden to the Agency to
be an average additional 4 hours per year per mill respondent for support of State and local
NPDES permitting authorities. The total recurring burden for the Agency is estimated at 116
hours per year at a total cost of $4,204.
6(d).

ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN
AND COST

As discussed previously, EPA estimates the potential respondent universe (i.e., the mills
likely to enroll in the incentives program) to be 29 mills. The estimates of how many mills are
likely to enroll in the incentives program for each of the three tiers are based on the following:
•

There are 16 mills that already have technology in place that is comparable to that
specified as the model technology required for Tier I or have a corporate
commitment to install the technology. Two of those 16 mills, however, are
projected to go to Tier III (see below). Therefore, the EPA estimate of how many
mills are likely to enroll for Tier I is 14.

•

EPA’s projection on how many mills are likely to enroll for Tier II is based on the
assumption that mills with over 400 kkg/day softwood production and with
technology using minimal chlorine dioxide substitution are likely candidates to
adopt Tier II technology. There are 12 mills that meet these criteria. One existing
totally chlorine free kraft mill is also projected to enroll for Tier II, making a total
of 13 mills projected to enroll for Tier II.

•

There are two mills operated by a company developing technology to recycle
bleach plant filtrate. These two mills are projected to enroll for Tier III.
10

The result is that 29 mills are projected to enroll in the incentives program -- 14 for Tier I, 13 for
Tier II, and 2 for Tier III.
Total respondent burden and cost are calculated by multiplying the hours per mill and the
costs per mill for each technology tier by the projected number of mills likely to enroll in the
incentives program at that tier. The following Table 4 summarizes the total respondent burden
and cost:

Table 4
Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost
Technology
Tier

Hours / Mill

Costs / Mill

# of Enrolled
Mills

Tier I

56

$3000

14

784

Tier II

154

$22,272

13

2,002

Tier III

328

$44,141

2

656

29

3,442

TOTAL
Annualized
a

Total
Hours

Total Labor
Costa
$42,000
$289,536
$88,282
$419,818

1,147

Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill.

6(e).

BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the hours
and costs incurred for all activities. There are no associated Operating and Maintenance or capital
start up costs associated with this ICR.
(i)

Respondent Tally

The bottom line respondent (mills and State governments) is presented in Table 5.
(ii)

The Agency Tally

The bottom line Agency tally is also presented in Table 5

11

Table 5
Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based on 29 Mills in 2004
Dollars
Category

Year 1
Labor
Hours/Costs

Year 2
Labor
Hours/
Costs

Year 3
Labor
Hours/
Costsa

3-year
Total
Burden

Respondents Subpart B and
E mills

3,442
$419,818

n/a

n/a

3,442
hours

RespondentsState
governments

464
$16,815

174
$6,305

174
$6,305

812
hours

4,254
hours

Total
Respondents
Hours
Agency

a

116
$4,204

116
$4,204

812
hours

Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill.
Table 6:

6(f).

580
$21,019

Bottom Line Burden Hour and Cost Table

Annual
Respondent
burden

1,418 hours

Annual
Respondent
Cost (O&M)

0

REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

There is no change in the total estimated burden hours currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens.
6(g).

BURDEN STATEMENT

EPA estimates that 29 mills will voluntarily enroll into VATIP. The burden for a mill
(which chooses to participate voluntarily in the incentives program) to prepare and submit a
12

Milestones Plan is estimated to average approximately 120 hours per respondent. This is a onetime burden. State NPDES permitting authorities burden to review the Milestones Plans is
estimated at 16 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review
burden of 6 hours per respondent. Agency burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 20
hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 4 hours
per respondent. The total initial cost for the 29 mills anticipated to enroll in the VATIP and thus be
required to develop a Milestones Plan is estimated at $419,818. The total initial burden incurred by
State permitting authorities and EPA for review the Milestones Plans is estimated at $16,815 and
$21,019, respectively. The total recurring burden incurred by State permitting authorities and EPA
for periodic review of the Milestones Plans is estimated at $6,305 and $4,204, respectively. There
is no recurring burden for mill respondents associated with this information collection.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9
and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. OW-2004-0024, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use
EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you
can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please
include the EPA Docket ID No. (OW-2004-0024) and OMB control number (2040-0202) in any
correspondence.

13

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR
MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT
DISCHARGING MILLS IN THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA
SUBCATEGORY AND THE PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY OF THE
PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY (RENEWAL)
(40 CFR PART 430)
EPA ICR Number 1878.02
OMB Control Number 2040-0243

May 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

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

2.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(a) Non-duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3(g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5

4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(a) Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(c) Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4(d) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
6
6
9
9

5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5(d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11
11
12
12
12

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(b) Estimating Respondent Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(f) Reason for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6(g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12
12
19
22
23
23
24
24

6.

1
1
1

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1
Table 4.2

Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14

Minimum Monitoring: Mill Respondent Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reduced Effluent Monitoring for TCDD, TCDF, Chloroform, and the
12 Chlorinated Phenolics for Mills Participating in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program (VATIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Duration of Reduced Effluent Monitoring for TCDD, TCDF, Chloroform,
and the 12 Chlorinated Phenolics for Mills Participating in the VATIP . . . . . . . . . 8
Reduced Effluent Monitoring for AOX for Mills Participating in the VATIP . . . . 8
NPDES-authorized State Requirements (As Users of Data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State and Local Pretreatment Control Authorities Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Regulated Pollutants and Number of Affected Mills and Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Annual Sampling Burden for Subpart B Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Annual Sampling Burden for Subpart E Papergrade Sulfite Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Annual Reporting Burden for Each Pollutant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Annual Reporting Burden for Subpart B and E Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Annual Recordkeeping Burden for Subpart B and E Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary of Annual Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Labor Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Analytical Sample Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Annual (O&M) Estimate of Analytical Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Total Estimated Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (2004 Dollars) . 24
Total Estimated Annual Agency Burden and Cost Summary (2004 Dollars) . . . . 24
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Supporting Assumptions and Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 1

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a)

Title of the Information Collection

ICR: Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (EPA ICR No. 1878.02) (OMB Control
Number 2040-0243).
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
This Information Collection Request (ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to
the regulated community and to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit and pretreatment approval and control authorities for monitoring, reporting,
recordkeeping, and follow-up actions associated with implementation of the minimum
monitoring requirements of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards (Cluster Rules; 40 CFR Part 430), which were published on April 15, 1998 for mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory (Subpart E). See 63 FR 18504-18751. The regulated community consists of
approximately 94 direct and indirect discharging papergrade kraft, soda and papergrade sulfite
mills. This is a renewal ICR
The Cluster Rules establish minimum monitoring requirements for certain pollutants,
namely adsorbable organic halides (AOX), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD),
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), chloroform and 12 chlorinated phenolics. Pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA intends to add these specific monitoring requirements
contained in the Cluster Rules (see 40 CFR § 430.02) to the ICR for NPDES/Sewage Sludge
Monitoring Reports ICR (OMB 2040-0004) and the National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB
2040-0009). The current National Pretreatment Program ICR includes burden for indirect
dischargers regulated under the Cluster Rules. This ICR serves to clarify and augment the
burden already identified in the National Pretreatment Program ICR incurred by indirect
dischargers for compliance with minimum monitoring requirements.
This ICR covers the minimum monitoring requirements for 94 direct and indirect
discharging mills as well as the alternative requirements for those Subpart B mills that choose to
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP), and those Subpart
B mills that demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards at a
fiber line in lieu of certain monitoring requirements, until such time that these requirements are
subsumed under the NPDES/Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR (OMB 2040-0004).
2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
As mentioned above, EPA established minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX,
TCDD, TCDF, chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolics for existing and new direct and indirect

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 2

discharging mills within Subparts B and E under authority of CWA Section 308. Discharge of
these pollutants into the freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats,
affect aquatic life and adversely impact human health. Chlorinated organic compounds from
chlorine bleaching, particularly TCDD and TCDF, are human carcinogens and human system
toxicants and are extremely toxic to aquatic life. Additionally, Section 402(a)(2) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with
requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other
requirements as [the Administrator] deems appropriate.”
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
The primary users of the data are the owners and operators of direct and indirect
discharging pulp and paper mills in Subparts B and E and NPDES permitting, pretreatment
control, and enforcement authorities. Citizen groups also use this data to independently assess
facility compliance.
EPA expects that the monitoring reports will be used by NPDES and pretreatment control
authorities to determine compliance with the Cluster Rules effluent limitations and standards.
EPA, States, and local authorities also analyze monitoring data when establishing permit and
control agreement conditions and revise permit and pretreatment control agreement requirements
based on data from monitoring reports. Furthermore, EPA and States refer to discharge
monitoring reports and facility monitoring data on toxic pollutants when developing lists of
waters not meeting applicable water quality standards. EPA anticipates that State NPDES
permitting and pretreatment control authorities will only need to conduct detailed technical
reviews of monitoring reports in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with
the NPDES permit or pretreatment control agreement conditions.
EPA anticipates that permittees will use the monitoring data to track the effectiveness
and progress of reducing pollutant discharges. For this reason, most permittees usually collect
additional data (e.g., product quality and production efficiency information) that may or may not
be included with monitoring reports. Collection and reporting of data to permitting and
pretreatment control authorities also provides permittees with an incentive to remain in
compliance with their established permit limitations and conditions.
As public information, monitoring data is used by public environmental/citizen groups
for a variety of purposes. Citizen groups review monitoring data to independently assess
discharger compliance. In some instances the data forms the basis for citizen suits that are
authorized under Section 505 of the CWA. In addition, environmental groups, academicians and
others use monitoring data to estimate pollutant loadings to streams, lakes, oceans and estuaries.
3.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(a)

Non-duplication

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 3

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 430, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the
following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available
elsewhere:
•
•
•

EPA Information Systems Inventory,
Government Information Locator System (GILS), and
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate collection requirements. Any monitoring
requirements imposed by individual permits for the affected pollutants would be superseded by
these requirements, unless they require more frequent monitoring than the Cluster Rules. EPA
has concluded that there is no other way to obtain the compliance assessment information
addressed in this ICR.
3(b)

Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission

EPA solicited comments on the renewal of this ICR (No. 1878.02) on August 30, 2004
(69 FR 52883-52888). EPA did not receive any comments.
3(c)

Consultations

EPA consulted with the public, industry and States on the minimum monitoring
requirements through the rulemaking process for the Cluster Rules. As mentioned above, EPA
received no comments on this ICR.
3(d)

Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

EPA has determined the minimum monitoring frequencies established, at 40 CFR
§430.02(a) and (b), are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Cluster Rules’ effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. The regulation requires collection of daily, weekly, or
monthly discharge data, depending on the pollutant. Some mill operators may collect such data
independent of this requirement for purposes of monitoring and optimizing bleach plant,
chemical recovery, and wastewater treatment plant operations. EPA determined that the
minimum required monitoring frequencies were necessary because of the degree of change that
is expected to occur to and temporal variability in pulping and bleaching processes and the
resulting variations in effluent discharges of each fiber line that can and do occur frequently and
at any time. Therefore, EPA was concerned that less frequent monitoring would not provide the
information necessary to ensure compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated as part of the Cluster Rules. See 63 Fed. Reg. at 18571-72.
In establishing the minimum monitoring frequencies for the regulated pollutants, EPA
has struck a balance between the cost of the monitoring regimen and the need to ensure that
sufficient data is consistently available to permitting and pretreatment control authorities.
Permitting and pretreatment control authorities need to have an adequate basis to verify
compliance with the effluent limitations and standards given the environmental significance of
these pollutants that are highly toxic and bioaccumulative, and the generation of which is

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 4

variable as available data clearly demonstrate. This monitoring regimen also ensures sufficient
data are available to the mill so that the mill may quickly become aware of and react to releases
that may be harmful to the environment.
EPA selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per month for TCDD, TCDF,
and chlorinated phenolic pollutants. These pollutants are the most toxic and bioaccumulative
among those regulated yet are also the most costly to analyze. EPA expects the 12 data points
for each pollutant per year, together with daily end-of-pipe AOX data and information on
process conditions from detailed mill logs, will yield a meaningful basis for establishing
compliance with the promulgated effluent limitations and standards.
EPA selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per week for chloroform. This
monitoring frequency has been selected because data available indicates there can be
considerable temporal variability of this pollutant in bleach plant wastewaters. This variability is
attributable to a number of process and operational variables. Therefore, more data is required
to adequately assess compliance with the limitations and standards on both a long-term and
short-term basis. The cost of laboratory analysis of chloroform is much lower than for TCDD,
TCDF, and chlorinated phenolics. Weekly data and information on process conditions from
detailed mill logs will yield a meaningful basis for establishing long-term compliance trends in
chloroform discharge loadings and developing process control strategies to also ensure the shortterm compliance with the promulgated effluent limitations and standards.
EPA selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once daily for AOX for non-TCF
(totally chlorine free) mills. This monitoring frequency has been selected because there can be
considerable daily variability in chlorinated organic discharge loadings to receiving streams.
Discharge loadings reflect bleach plant discharge patterns and secondary biological treatment
system performance that is readily measured at reasonable cost. AOX analysis costs are
anticipated to decrease as the number of mills (in the respondent universe of this ICR) begin
compliance monitoring efforts with the Cluster Rules. Daily monitoring for AOX provides a
continuous data stream of all chlorinated organic constituents in wastewater, allowing mill
operators and permit authorities to assess and control both process technologies and end-of-pipe
biological treatment systems.
The minimum monitoring frequencies as described above will provide sufficient
information to: (1) evaluate mill compliance with the Cluster Rules limitations and standards
over the long term; and (2) allow permitting and pretreatment control authorities to judge
whether a different frequency of monitoring is warranted after the initial compulsory period of
minimum monitoring has been completed.
Additionally, EPA has offered Subpart B mills several options to reduce monitoring
burden over the course of the permit cycle. These options include:
C
C

Enrollment in the VATIP, which was established by the Cluster Rules.
Certification in lieu of monitoring for chloroform (proposed on April 15, 1998, 63
FR 18796, promulgated September 19, 2002, 67 FR 58990).

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 5

Mills participating in the VATIP may be eligible for further reductions in monitoring
requirements. See 40 CFR 430.02(c)-(e). Mills enrolling in the VATIP are subject to more
stringent BAT limitations and NSPS than EPA could otherwise compel through its minimum
BAT and NSPS effluent limitations guidelines and standards. To encourage participation in the
incentives program, EPA has provided for reduced monitoring requirements for participating
mills. The reduced monitoring incentive applicable to AOX, TCDD, TCDF, chloroform and the
12 chlorinated phenolics is available as soon as participating mills achieve baseline BAT
limitations, and for AOX after mills achieve the ultimate VATIP limitations (see Table 4.2). See
also 63 FR 18609-18610 and 64 FR 36580-36586.
EPA has promulgated a certification mechanism for Subpart B mills that demonstrate to
the NPDES permitting authority that they have achieved the applicable limitations or standards
for chloroform for a period of two years and that certain process and operating conditions are
maintained. See 67 FR 58990-58998. Each mill voluntarily choosing to certify in lieu of
monitoring for a fiber line would be required to maintain records documenting that process and
operational conditions are maintained within the range established during the initial compliance
demonstration. Following the required two year minimum monitoring period, mills would no
longer be subject to minimum monitoring requirements for chloroform as required by 40
CFR§430.02. As a result, the total monitoring burden would be reduced.
EPA acknowledges that both the VATIP and the certification in lieu of monitoring could
substantially modify the burden reflected in this ICR. Nevertheless, these modifications are
presented as stand alone ICR and are not included in this document. See EPA ICR Numbers
1877.03 and 2015.02.
3(e)

General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2).
3(f) Confidentiality
EPA does not expect that confidential business information (CBI) or trade secrets will be
required from mill operators as part of this ICR. Where information submitted in conjunction
with this ICR contains CBI, the respondent may request that this information be treated as
confidential business information. All data so designated will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR
Part 2 when EPA is the permitting or pretreatment control authority, and pursuant to applicable
state rules and regulations governing CBI when states are the permitting or pretreatment control
authorities. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Clean Water Act, effluent data may not be treated
as confidential.
3(g)

Sensitive Questions

The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.
4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 6

4(a) Respondents and SIC Codes
The respondent universe for this ICR will be: 1) approximately 94 direct and indirect
discharging chemical pulp mills included in Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda)
and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category
(SIC 2611, 2631) (NAICS 32211,322121,322122, 32213); and 2) the 34 NPDES and
pretreatment approval-authorized States and 10 local pretreatment control authorities responsible
for ensuring compliance with NPDES and pretreatment regulations. Pretreatment approval
authorities are defined as regulatory agencies, EPA or States, that oversee programs
implemented by individual pretreatment control authorities (i.e., publically owned treatment
works (POTWs)).
4(b) Information Requested
The following sections outline the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
for direct and indirect discharging facilities under 40 CFR 430. Table 4.1 outlines the
information requirements for each category of respondents. The data requirements are listed by
regulation number.
Table 4.1 Minimum Monitoring: Mill Respondent Requirements
40 CFR Citation

Regulatory Description

Monitoring and/or
Reporting Frequency

Monitoring Requirements: Sample Collection and Analysis
430.02 (a)

For each non-TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) bleaching
fiber line, mills must conduct minimum monitoring at the
following frequencies:
•
AOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
chloroform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
each of the 12 chlorinated phenolics . . . . . . . . .

430.54 (a), 430.56 (a)

AOX limits are reserved for non-TCF bleaching lines at
direct and indirect Subpart E mills, therefore no
minimum monitoring requirements for AOX exist for
these mills.

430.02 (a)

There are no specified minimum monitoring frequencies
for fiber lines with exclusively TCF bleaching.

430.02 (b)

For direct dischargers, minimum monitoring frequencies
apply for a duration of five years commencing on the
date the applicable limitations or standards are first
included in the discharger’s NPDES permit.

Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly

None

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 7

Table 4.1 Minimum Monitoring: Mill Respondent Requirements
430.02(b)

For existing indirect dischargers, minimum monitoring
frequencies apply until April 17, 2006. For new indirect
dischargers, minimum monitoring frequencies apply for a
duration of five years commencing on the date the
indirect discharger commences operation.

Reporting and Recording Requirements
122.41(l)(4)

Requires direct dischargers to report all monitoring
results to the permitting authority using Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs).

Permit-specific/At Least
Annually

122.44(i)(2)
403.12 (b), (d), (e), (g)

Requires indirect dischargers to report monitoring results
to the pretreatment control authority using Periodic
Compliance Reports (PCRs).

Agreement-specific/At
Least Biannually

122.41(j)(2)

Requires direct dischargers to retain ongoing monitoring
records and copies of all reports for at least 3 years from
the date of the sample.

403.12(o)(2)

Requires indirect dischargers to retain ongoing
monitoring records and copies of all reports for at least 3
years from the date of the sample.

Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 outline the reduced monitoring requirements for those mills enrolled in
the VATIP.
Table 4.2 Reduced Effluent Monitoring for TCDD, TCDF, Chloroform, and the
12 Chlorinated Phenolics for Mills Participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP)
40 CFR Reference
430.02(c)

430.02(c)

Regulatory Description

Monitoring Frequency

Requires non-ECF1 Subpart B mills enrolled in the VATIP
to conduct minimum monitoring for these pollutants at the
following frequencies:
•
chloroform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
each of the 12 chlorinated phenolics . . . . . . . .

Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly

Requires Advanced ECF2 Subpart B mills enrolled in the
VATIP to conduct minimum monitoring for these pollutants
at the following frequencies:
•
chloroform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
each of the 12 chlorinated phenolics . . . . . . . .

Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 8

Table 4.2 Reduced Effluent Monitoring for TCDD, TCDF, Chloroform, and the
12 Chlorinated Phenolics for Mills Participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP)
430.02 (c)-(e)

Notes:

Subpart B mills enrolled in the VATIP that use exclusively
None
TCF bleaching have no specified limits or monitoring
frequencies for these pollutants.
Non-ECF pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
Advanced ECF pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes, or
exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application
under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.

1
2

Table 4.3 Duration of Reduced Effluent Monitoring for TCDD, TCDF, Chloroform, and the
12 Chlorinated Phenolics for Mills Participating in the VATIP
40 CFR Reference
430.02(c)

Regulatory Description

Duration

The duration of monitoring is five years, commencing after
achievement of the applicable VATIP limitations or
standards for those pollutants.

5 Years

Subpart B mills that certify that the fiber line uses Advanced
ECF bleaching processes in their NPDES permit application
or other communication to the permitting authority may
discontinue monitoring at these frequencies after one year.
The permitting authority will determine monitoring
frequency beyond that time.

1 Year

Table 4.4 Reduced Effluent Monitoring for AOX for Mills Participating in the VATIP
40 CFR Reference
430.02 (d)

430.02 (e)

Regulatory Description

Monitoring Frequency

Subpart B mills enrolled in the VATIP may reduce
monitoring frequencies for AOX for the first year after
achievement of the applicable Stage 2 or ultimate VATIP
limitations or standards for AOX, as follows:
•
Non-ECF - Tiers I, II, & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
Advanced ECF - Tiers I, II, & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCF - Tiers I, II, & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Daily
Weekly
None

Subpart B mills enrolled in the VATIP may reduce
monitoring frequencies for AOX for years two through five
after achievement of the applicable Stage 2 or ultimate
VATIP limitations or standards for AOX, as follows:
•
Non-ECF - Tiers I, II, & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
Advanced ECF - Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
Advanced ECF - Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
Advanced ECF - Tier III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
TCF - Tiers I, II, & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Daily
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
None

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 9

Should a facility choose to collect and analyze more samples than specified in its permit,
the permittee must include all monitoring data in the reports. See 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4)(ii). As
indicated in Table 4.1, submission of reports shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES
permit or pretreatment control authority, but in no case less than once per year for direct
dischargers and twice per year for indirect dischargers. Also, the permittee must collect and
analyze representative samples and must conduct all monitoring requirements according to
permit specific conditions and/or approved test procedures as set forth under 40 CFR Parts 136,
430, and 503. See 40 CFR 122.41(j).
4(c) Recordkeeping requirements
A sample of a pre-printed discharge monitoring form may be obtained from the
NPDES/Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR. Direct and indirect dischargers are required
to maintain monitoring records, copies of all reports required by the NPDES permit or
pretreatment control agreement and records of all data used to complete the permit application
for at least 3 years. See 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) and 40 CFR 403.12(o)(2).
4(d) Respondent Activities
(i) Mill respondent activities include the following:
C

Preparing basic information. This includes reviewing regulatory and permit
requirements; conducting monitoring; preparing chain of custody forms; coordinating
with lab facilities; tracking of shipments; receipt and review of lab reports; preparation of
DMRs or PCRs; and submitting reports to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authority.

C

Maintaining records. All direct and indirect discharging mills in Subparts B and E must
keep records of monitoring information and spill reports as required by the regulation.
The burden for preparing spill reports and recordkeeping under 430.03(c)(5) and (g) is
included in the Best Management Practices ICR (ICR No. 1829.01; OMB No. 20400207), and thus is not accounted for in this ICR.
(ii) NPDES and pretreatment approval-authorized States and pretreatment control
authorities respondent activities include:

•
•
•

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and Periodic Compliance Report (PCR) Review
Follow-up Activities
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Data review varies from State to State. Generally, the permitting and pretreatment control
authority routinely screens data to identify permit violations and conducts a more thorough
technical review and follow-up when violations are detected. Follow-up activities may include
informal contact with the permittee (by telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action,
technical assistance, field inspections to further substantiate violations, in the case of indirect
dischargers request assistance from the pretreatment approval authority, or a formal enforcement

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 10

action such as an Administrative Order or referral to the EPA regional office and/or the U.S.
Attorney (or State's Attorney General in the case of NPDES and pretreatment control-authorized
States). Table 4.5 summarizes NPDES-authorized State requirements.
Table 4.5. NPDES-authorized State Requirements (As Users of Data)
40 CFR Citation

Regulatory Description

Response Frequency

DMR data review
§123.26(a)

Requires the NPDES permitting authority to have
procedures for reviewing DMR submissions, using the
reported data to evaluate permittee compliance. The
permitting authority must also have procedures for
conducting an initial screening of compliance-related
information.

Variable/Permit-specific

§123.26(e)

When warranted, requires the permitting authority to have
procedures to follow-up the initial screening with a
substantive technical evaluation to determine permittee
compliance with permit conditions.

As Necessary

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
§123.26(e)(4)

Requires the permitting authority to have the procedures
and ability for maintaining a management information
system that supports the compliance evaluation activities.

Ongoing

Table 4.6 summarizes State and local pretreatment control authorities requirements.
Table 4.6. State and Local Pretreatment Control Authorities Requirements (As Users of Data)
40 CFR Citation

Regulatory Description

Response Frequency

PCR data review
§403.8(f)

Requires the pretreatment control authority to have
procedures for reviewing PCR submissions, using the
reported data to evaluate permittee compliance. The
permitting authority must also have procedures for
conducting an initial screening of compliance-related
information.

Variable/Permit-specific

§403.8(f)

When warranted, requires the pretreatment control
authority to have procedures to follow-up the initial
screening with a substantive technical evaluation to
determine permittee compliance with permit conditions.

As Necessary

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 11

Table 4.6. State and Local Pretreatment Control Authorities Requirements (As Users of Data)
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
§403.8(f)

Requires the pretreatment control authority to have the
procedures and ability for maintaining a management
information system that supports the compliance
evaluation activities.

Ongoing

EPA anticipates that under 40 CFR §403.8(f), the pretreatment control authority may request
assistance from the pretreatment approval authority in its follow-up activities to determine an
indirect discharger’s compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.
5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a)

Agency Activities

Activities undertaken by EPA under this information collection primarily include
oversight of the NPDES and pretreatment program, and where EPA is the NPDES-permitting,
pretreatment approval or control authority, review of monitoring data, and where necessary,
follow-up actions. Agency activities as the NPDES permitting or pretreatment control authority
are essentially the same for NPDES-authorized States summarized in Table 4.5 and State and
local pretreatment control authorities summarized in Table 4.6.
The extent to which EPA reviews data in assessing permit compliance may vary. For
example, EPA may conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in
violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance. In
cases of continued non-compliance, EPA may use monitoring report data to identify patterns of
non-compliance and/or to support Agency enforcement efforts. EPA and/or the permitting
authorities may limit its review of data submitted by fully compliant permittees to a simple
determination of continuing compliance. After the initial period of minimum monitoring is
complete, monitoring requirements may be reduced by the permitting authorities for permittees
that consistently demonstrate an ability to reduce pollutants in their discharge below their permit
limitations. EPA also expects, however, permitting authorities to consider whether poor
performance, compliance or enforcement history, or other site-specific factors indicate a need to
impose more frequent monitoring than that specified in §430.02. EPA may also review data
from minor permittees that may cause water quality problems (i.e, significant minors). EPA
may review data from other minor permittees less frequently. In most cases, EPA will forward
copies of reports to the States. EPA does not require the unauthorized States to review data, but
several States voluntarily conduct the review and use the results in their own programs.
EPA regions also may review data from major direct and indirect discharging permittees
while performing program oversight functions (e.g., during file audits and when compiling
statistical compliance summaries).

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 12

Reported data is often stored in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for reference. EPA
and States may use this data to evaluate potential compliance problems, focus inspection efforts,
conduct spot check reviews and determine appropriate enforcement action. PCS is available for
public review at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/water.html#pcs.
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
Respondents typically report collected compliance data on DMRs for direct dischargers
and PCRs for indirect dischargers. Use of pre-printed DMR and PCR forms is one method that
EPA has used to improve its collection methodology. EPA expects that the Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) will be finalized in the next few months, which will
enable EPA to accept electronic submission of data. The electronic submission of DMR/PCR
data will be voluntary and will be an alternative to the paper DMR/PCR submission. EPA
makes use of the PCS database to store, track and access this information.
5(c)

Small Entity Flexibility

EPA has already certified that the Cluster Rules, including the minimum monitoring
requirements will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as that term is used in the RFA (see Section X.C. of the Preamble to the final Cluster
Rules published in the Federal Register on April 15,1998 (see 63 FR 18611)
5(d) Collection Schedule
The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to coincide with
existing reporting schedules. The timeframes for submitting compliance assessment information
are outlined below:

6.

•

Monitoring and recordkeeping are performed on a continual basis (see Table 4.1);

•

Reports are to be prepared for submission to NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authorities at a frequency to be determined by these authorities, but no less than once
per year for direct dischargers or twice per year (June and December) for indirect
dischargers. EPA expects that such reporting frequencies will be consistent with
existing reporting requirements already applicable to mills.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
6(a)

Estimating Respondent Burden

This section describes the methods EPA used to estimate the burden to respondents
associated with collecting, reporting and maintaining records of monitoring data. Although
Subpart B mills may qualify for reduced monitoring frequencies by enrolling in the VATIP, EPA
did not account for these possible reductions in order to estimate the full potential burden to
Subpart B mills. The assumptions made and a brief description of the basis for the burden
estimates are presented below. Further supporting calculations and assumptions may be found in

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 13

Appendix A. The number of affected facilities and the pollutants regulated associated with this
ICR are listed in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Regulated Pollutants and Number of Mills and Lines
Category

Number of
Affected
Direct
Discharging
Facilities

Number of
Affected
Indirect
Discharging
Facilities

Number of Bleach
Lines
Direct

Indirect

Regulated Pollutants

Subpart B, Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda

75

9

120

14

AOX, TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, chlorinated
phenolics

Subpart E,
Calcium/Sodium/
Magnesium Sulfite

5

0

5

0

AOX

Subpart E, Ammonium
Sulfite

2

1

2

1

TCDD, TCDF,
chlorinated phenolics

Subpart E, Specialty Grade

2

0

2

0

TCDD, TCDF,
chlorinated phenolics

Total

84

10

129

15

(i) Sampling Activities
All Subpart B and E direct discharging mills will be required to monitor for new BAT
and NSPS pollutants at the minimum frequency specified in 40 CFR 430.02 (see Table 4.1).
Direct discharging mills typically have one wastewater final effluent outfall with continuous
monitoring capabilities. For AOX monitoring, which must be performed daily on the mill’s final
effluent, EPA anticipates that mill personnel will take an additional 15 minutes (0.25 hour) to
prepare the AOX aliquot, labels and paperwork and to ship the sample to the laboratory for
analysis.
All Subpart B and E indirect discharging mills will be required to monitor for new PSES
and PSNS pollutants at the minimum frequency specified in 40 CFR 430.02(see Table 4.1). For
indirect dischargers, AOX monitoring must be performed daily at the point where the
wastewater containing that pollutant leaves the bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.26(c) and
430.26(c). Some mills have a combined sewer containing both acidic and alkaline wastewaters,
but most mills have bleach lines with separate acid and alkaline sewers, thus typically, there will
be two monitoring stations per bleach line. These samples can be collected either automatically
or manually. The samples can be either grab or composite. The bleach plant sampling burden is
calculated assuming manual grab composite sampling:
Sampling Burden (hours) = Avg. Number of Samples x Avg. Hours to Collect Sample

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 14

When bleach acid and alkaline wastewater samples are collected separately, additional labor for
flow-proportioned composite sampling is anticipated (see Appendix A, Section I for supporting
assumptions and calculations). The labor required for daily monitoring for AOX for indirect
dischargers includes time to collect samples plus shipping of samples to the laboratory for
analysis; this burden is estimated to be 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per sample.
For bleach plant monitoring, the Cluster Rules require all Subpart B and E mills to
monitor for TCDD, TCDF, chloroform, and the 12 chlorinated phenolics at the point were the
water containing these pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.24(e), 430.25(e),
430.54(c) and 430.55(d). Some mills have a combined sewer containing both acidic and alkaline
wastewaters, but most mills have bleach lines with separate acid and alkaline sewers, thus
typically, there will be two monitoring stations per bleach line. These samples can be collected
either automatically or manually. The samples can be either grab or composite. The bleach
plant sampling burden is calculated assuming manual grab composite sampling:
Sampling Burden (hours) = Avg. Number of Samples x Avg. Hours to Collect Sample
When bleach acid and alkaline wastewater samples are collected separately, additional
labor for flow-proportioned composite sampling is anticipated (see Appendix A, Section I for
supporting assumptions and calculations). The labor required for monthly sampling for TCDD,
TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics includes time to collect samples plus shipping of
samples to the laboratory for analysis; this burden is estimated to be 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per
sample. For chloroform, however, separate samples and analyses of all bleach plant filtrates
discharged separately are required to prevent the loss of chloroform either through air stripping
as the samples are collected, measured, and composited or through chemical reaction when the
acid and alkaline samples are combined. The labor required for weekly sampling of chloroform
includes time to collect samples plus shipping of samples to the laboratory for analysis and is
estimated to be 1.5 hours per sample. For Subpart B bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills,
the annual sampling burden is summarized in Table 6.2. For Subpart E papergrade sulfite mills,
the annual sampling burden is summarized in Table 6.3 (see Appendix A, Section II for
supporting assumptions and calculations).
Table 6.2 Annual Sampling Burden for Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Mills
Pollutant

Facilities

Sampling

Labor per
sample
(hours)

Sample
frequency

Total Annual
Burden
(hours)

AOX (Direct)

75 mills

1 final effluent

0.25

daily

6,844

AOX (Indirect)

14 bleach lines

2 bleach plant

0.5

daily

5,110

AOX (Indirect)

50 percent of 14
bleach lines

flow- proportioned
composite

0.25

daily

639

chloroform (Direct
and Indirect)

134 bleach lines
(120 direct, 14
indirect)

2 bleach plant

1.5

weekly

20,904

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 15

Table 6.2 Annual Sampling Burden for Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Mills
TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated
phenolics (Direct)

120 bleach lines

2 bleach plant

0.5

monthly

1,440

TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated
phenolics
(Indirect)

14 bleach lines

2 bleach plant

0.5

monthly

168

TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated
phenolics(direct)

50 percent of 120
bleach lines

flow- proportioned
composite

0.25

monthly

180

TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated
phenolics(indirect)

50 percent of 14
bleach lines

flow- proportioned
composite

0.25

monthly

21

Total Sampling Burden for Subpart B mills (hours)

35,306

Table 6.3 Annual Sampling Burden for Subpart E Papergrade Sulfite Mills
Pollutant

Facilities

Sampling

AOX (Direct)

5 calcium, magnesium,
and sodium sulfite mills

1 final effluent

0.25

daily

456

TCDD, TCDF,
12 chlorinated
phenolics
(Direct)

2 ammonium sulfite
bleach lines

2 bleach plant

0.5

monthly

24

TCDD, TCDF,
12 chlorinated
phenolics
(Indirect)

1 ammonium sulfite
bleach line

2 bleach plant

0.5

monthly

12

TCDD, TCDF,
12 chlorinated
phenolics
(Direct)

2 specialty grade bleach
lines

2 bleach plant

0.5

monthly

24

TCDD, TCDF,
12 chlorinated
phenolics
(Direct)

50 percent of 4 bleach
lines (ammonium sulfite
and specialty grade)

flow-proportioned
composite

0.25

monthly

6

TCDD, TCDF,
12 chlorinated
phenolics
(Indirect)

50 percent of 1 bleach
line (ammonium sulfite
and specialty grade)

flow-proportioned
composite

0.25

monthly

2

Total Sampling Burden for Subpart E mills (hours)

Labor per
sample
(hours)

Sample
frequency

Total Annual
Burden
(hours)

524

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 16

(ii) Analysis of Samples
Collected samples are either analyzed on-site using the facility’s own laboratory or the
samples are sent to an outside laboratory for analysis. For the purposes of this ICR, analysis
burden is assumed to be contracted to outside laboratories for the purpose of estimating the full
potential burden of minimum monitoring on Subpart B and E mills. This respondent burden is
expressed as an “operation and maintenance” cost (see Section 6(b), particularly Table 6.9).
(iii) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Reporting of monitoring data involves compilation of data from various pollutant
analyses and calculation of average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. The respondent
records this information on the DMR or PCR and submits this information to the NPDES
permitting or pretreatment control authority. For the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumed that
DMRs and PCRs are submitted monthly to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority
in order to express the full potential reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with the
minimum monitoring requirements for Subpart B and E mills. EPA estimates of the reporting
burden per pollutant for the Cluster Rule effluent minimum monitoring are summarized in Table
6.4. Total annual reporting burden for Subpart B and E mills, using annual burden estimated per
regulated pollutant as described in Table 6.4, is summarized in Table 6.5 (see Appendix A,
Section III for supporting assumptions and calculations).
Table 6.4 Annual Reporting Burden for Each Pollutant per Mill
Pollutant

Burden Assumptions

AOX

daily results are averaged for
monthly report

0.1

1.2

chloroform

weekly reports averaged for
monthly report

0.17

2.0

TCDD, TCDF, 12 chlorinated
phenolics

monthly reports at 2 minutes
for each of 14 pollutants

0.47

5.6

0.74

8.8

Total

Reporting Burden
(hours/month)

Annual Burden
(hours)

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 17

Table 6.5 Annual Reporting Burden for Subpart B and E Mills
Category

Regulated Pollutants

Number of
Affected
Mills

Annual
Reporting
Burden per
mill (hours)

Total Annual
Burden
(hours)

Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda

AOX, TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, chlorinated
phenolics

84

8.8

739

Subpart E,
Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium
Sulfite

AOX

5

1.2

6

Subpart E, Ammonium Sulfite

TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated phenolics

3

5.6

17

Subpart E, Specialty Grade

TCDD, TCDF, 12
chlorinated phenolics

2

5.6

11

Total Annual Reporting Burden for Subpart B and E mills (hours)
Notes: 667 hours for direct dischargers; 96 hours for indirect dischargers for a total of 773

773

Facilities that are required to submit monitoring data are also required to maintain
records of that information. EPA assumes the time devoted to recordkeeping at these facilities
generally involves copying and filing DMRs or PCRs. EPA estimates this burden to be 10
minutes (0.17 hour) per DMR or PCR submitted with an extended amount of 40 minutes or 0.67
hour annually for quarterly reports for a total annual recordkeeping burden of 2.71 hours per
mill. Total annual recordkeeping burden for Subpart B and E mills is summarized in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Annual Recordkeeping Burden for Subpart B and E Mills
Category

Number of
Affected
Facilities

Annual
Recordkeeping
Burden per mill
(hours)

Total Annual Burden (hours)

Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda

84

2.71

228

Subpart E,
Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium
Sulfite

5

2.71

14

Subpart E, Ammonium Sulfite

3

2.71

8

Subpart E, Specialty Grade

2

2.71

5

Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden for Subpart B and E mill (hours)
Notes: 228 hours for direct dischargers; 27 hours for indirect dischargers for a total of 255

255

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 18

(iv) NPDES-authorized State Respondent Burden
The burden and associated costs to NPDES-authorized State permitting for processing
and analyzing monitoring data are a function of: 1) the number of DMRs received by the
permitting authority; 2) the time it takes to process and analyze monitoring data (including entry
into the PCS database); and, 3) the salary and associated overhead costs of the State employees
who process DMRs. In addition to entering monitoring data into PCS, staff may need to conduct
follow-up actions in instances of non-compliance. This follow-up could be a phone conversation
or a letter to verify, clarify or substantiate the information reported.
Of the 84 direct discharging mills in Subparts B and E, the States are authorized NPDES
permit authorities for 82 mills. Compliance monitoring for the remaining 2 mills is overseen by
EPA. Recurring incremental State burden for those that are authorized NPDES permit
authorities for processing and analyzing monitoring data, including entry into the PCS database
is estimated to be an average of 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per facility per DMR (82 mills x 12
DMRs per year) for an annual incremental burden of 492 hours. In addition, staff may need to
conduct follow-up actions in instances of non-compliance. This follow-up could be a phone
conversation or a letter to verify, clarify or substantiate the information reported. EPA estimates
that 20 percent of the DMRs submitted will require follow-up action by the delegated States,
particularly due to the unique nature of the new monitoring requirements imposed by the
recently-promulgated effluent limitations guidelines. EPA estimates that recurring incremental
State burden for this follow-up action requires an average of 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per facility
per DMR or approximately 98 additional incremental hours per year for a total annual
incremental burden of 590 hours.
(iv) State and Local Pretreatment Control Authority and State Pretreatment Approval
Authority Respondent Burden
EPA estimates that the 10 indirect discharging mills in Subparts B and E are all regulated
by local pretreatment control authorities, with States acting as pretreatment approval authorities
for all ten mills. Recurring incremental burden for pretreatment control authorities for
processing and analyzing monitoring data, including entry into the PCS database is estimated to
be an average of 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per facility per PCR (10 mills x 12 PCRs per year) for an
annual incremental burden of 60 hours. In addition, staff may need to conduct follow-up actions
in instances of non-compliance. This follow-up could be a phone conversation or a letter to
verify, clarify or substantiate the information reported. EPA estimates that 20 percent of the
PCRs submitted will require follow-up action by the pretreatment control authorities with
assistance by the pretreatment approval authority, particularly due to the unique nature of the
new monitoring requirements imposed by the recently-promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines. EPA estimates that recurring incremental burden for this follow-up action requires
an average of 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per facility per PCR or approximately 12 additional
incremental hours per year for a total annual incremental burden of 72 hours.
State pretreatment approval activities include program support, such as review of
pretreatment control agreement renewal applications, and review of monitoring data (10 total
mills). To estimate State pretreatment approval authority burden support activities, EPA
assumes that approximately 20 percent of all PCRs submitted will require follow-up assistance

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 19

from State pretreatment approval authorities with an estimated burden of one hour per PCR for a
total annual incremental burden of 24 hours.
A summary of annual respondent burden for Subpart B and Subpart E mills and States is
presented in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 Summary of Annual Respondent Burden
Category

Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda

Sampling
Burden
(hours)

Reporting
Burden
(hours)

Recordkeeping Total Annual
Burden
Respondent
(hours)
Burden
(hours)

35,306

739

228

36,273

Subpart E, Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium
Sulfite

456

6

14

476

Subpart E, Ammonium Sulfite

40

17

8

65

Subpart E, Specialty Grade

28

11

5

44

35,830

773

255

36,858

NPDES-authorized States
• Processing and analyzing monitoring data.
• Follow-up actions for 20 percent of DMRs

0
0

0
0

0
0

492
98

Totals for State NPDES Authorities

0

0

0

590

Local Pretreatment Control Authorities
• Processing and analyzing monitoring data
• Follow-up actions for 20 percent of PCRs.

0
0

0
0

0
0

60
12

0

0

0

72

0

0

0

24

0

0

0

24

Totals for Subpart B and E mills

Totals for Local Pretreatment Control
Authorities
State Pretreatment Approval Authorities
• Follow-up actions for 20 percent of PCRs
Totals for State Pretreatment Approval
Authorities
Totals for all Respondents

37,544

6(b) Estimating Respondent Cost
EPA evaluated the total cost for each respondent activity based on the following two cost
items:
•
•

Labor Costs
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 20

Cost for monitoring equipment were included as initial capital costs in the original ICR
(No. 1878.01). Therefore, these one-time costs are not included in the burden estimates of this
renewal ICR.
(i) Estimating Labor Costs (2004 Dollars)
Estimates for respondent labor costs were prepared using industry-specific labor rates
identical to those used for the EPA ICR Number 1878.01, included overhead and fringe benefits,
and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index: To verify the validity of
the adjusted rates EPA obtained national industry-specific wage estimates for the pulp, paper,
and paperboard mills from the Labor Department1. Noting that the Labor Department wages
were lower, EPA decided to apply the more conservative estimates from the previous ICR.
Technician
Operator

$64.58 /hour
$32.81 /hour

Technician labor is applied to reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Operator labor is applied to
sampling burden.
Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department
figures adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average
annual salary for Federal and State employees is $47,112; this is equivalent to the salary of a
GS-9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is
$22.65. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent
(EPA ICR Handbook), or $13.59 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $36.24 ($22.65
+ $13.59).
Estimates for local pretreatment control authority employees (i.e., POTW employees)
were based on the 2002 US Labor department figures for the wages and salaries value for State
and local government workers adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index
plus a 50 percent overhead burden; this is equivalent to an hourly rate of $33.36 ($22.24 +
$11.12).
Table 6.9 shows the labor rates (see Appendix A for supporting assumptions and calculations).
Table 6.8 Labor Rates
Technician

$64.58

Operator

$32.81

Federal and State

$36.24

Local Pretreatment Control Authority

$33.36

1

May 2003 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100 Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for Architecture and Engineering Occupations (SOC
Code 17-0000) and Production Occupation (SOC Code 51-0000), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe
benefits, are 46.00 and 27.14 respectively.

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 21

(ii) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
To estimate O&M costs associated with this ICR, EPA assumes that mills would send
their collected samples to outside laboratories for analysis. Some facilities may perform inhouse analysis for some pollutants (e.g., AOX and/or chloroform). However, for the purposes of
this ICR, EPA assumed that all analyses will be contracted to outside laboratories in order to
express the full potential analytical costs of minimum monitoring on Subpart B and E mills. In
the future, facilities may elect to conduct analysis in house, particularly AOX analyses, since the
monitoring requirement is daily.
Analytical costs performed at outside laboratories were taken from EPA ICR Number
1878.01 (originally from the BAT cost model in the “BAT Cost Model Support Document”
[DCN 13953]) and adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to 2004 dollars. These costs are as
follows:
Table 6.9 Analytical Sample Costs
Analyte

Cost/sample
(2004 dollars)

AOX

143

TCDD / TCDF

1040

chlorinated phenolics

594

chloroform

320

Table 6.10 shows the cost of sampling analysis for contracted lab work (see Appendix A for
supporting assumptions and calculations).
Table 6.10 Annual (O&M) Estimate of Analytical Costs1
Affected Category
Subpart B: bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills

Sampling Parameter
2

AOX
TCDD/TCDF2
chlorinated phenolics2
chloroform

Analyses/year
35,040
2,412
2,412
13936

Total Analytical Costs for Subpart B mills
Subpart E: papergrade sulfite

$5,010,720
$2,508,480
$1,432,728
$4,459,520
$13,411,448

2

AOX (calcium only)
TCDD/TCDF2
chlorinated phenolics2

Total Analytical Costs for Subpart E mills

Cost (2004 dollars)

1825
90
90

$260,975
$93,600
$53,460
$408,035

Total Analytical Costs for Subpart B and E mills
$13,819,483
1
Costs presented assume that all analytical work is contracted to outside laboratories.
Notes:
2
Analyses/year reflect that 50 percent of bleach lines will use one flow-proportioned composite for
analysis in lieu of two separate bleach plant samples (see Appendix A)

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 22

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
The estimates of EPA burden for direct dischargers are based on management and support
activities for mills located in:
C States without NPDES authority: EPA activities include analysis of monitoring data and

review of DMRs (2 total mills); this would translate to an incremental burden in addition to
current activities. Recurring incremental EPA burden for processing and analyzing
monitoring data, including entry into the PCS database (reporting and recordkeeping), is
estimated to be 30 minutes (0.5 hour) per facility per DMR. In addition, EPA assumes that
approximately 20 percent of all DMRs submitted will require follow-up action (as was
assumed in Section 6(a)(iv)), with an estimated burden of one hour per DMR.
C States with NPDES authority: EPA activities include program support, such as review of

NPDES permit renewal applications and draft permits, and review of monitoring data (82 total
mills). To estimate Agency burden support activities, EPA assumes that approximately 20
percent of all DMRs submitted will require follow-up assistance from EPA with an estimated
burden of one hour per DMR.
The estimates of EPA burden for indirect dischargers are based on management and support
activities for mills located in States acting as the pretreatment approval authority. EPA activities
include program support, such as review of pretreatment agreement renewal applications and
draft permits, and review of monitoring data (10 total mills). To estimate Agency burden
support activities, EPA assumes that approximately 20 percent of all PCRs submitted will
require follow-up assistance from EPA with an estimated burden of one hour per PCR.

Table 6.11 Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Costs
Category

Affected Subpart
B and E Mills

Activity

Annual
Labor Hours

Annual Costs
(2004 Dollars)

Agency Burden Associated with Direct Dischargers
States without NPDES
Permit Authority

States with NPDES
Permit Authority

2

82

Processing and analyzing
monitoring data

12

$435

Follow-up actions for 20
percent of DMRs

5

$181

Follow-up actions for 20
percent of DMRs

197

$7,139

24

$870

238

$8,625

Agency Burden Associated with Indirect Dischargers
States with Pretreatment
Approval Authority

10

Total Annual Agency
Burden and Costs

94

Follow-up actions for 20
percent of PCRs
-

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 23

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
Table 6.12 summarizes the total annual industry burden and costs inclusive of the sampling,
analysis, reporting and recordkeeping burden and annual burden and costs to State NPDES
permitting authorities.
Table 6.12 Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Costs
Category
Respondents - Sampling Burden
Subpart B, Kraft & Soda Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subpart E, Sulfite Mills . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents - Analytical Costs
Subpart B, Kraft & Soda Mills .
Subpart E, Sulfite Mills .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents - Reporting Burden
Subpart B, Kraft & Soda Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subpart E, Sulfite Mills . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents - Recordkeeping Burden
Subpart B, Kraft & Soda Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subpart E, Sulfite Mills . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents - Subpart B and E mills

Annual Labor
Hours
35306
524
35830

Annual Costs
(2004 Dollars)
$1,158,390
$17,192
$1,175,582
$13,411,448
$408,035
$13,819,483

739
34
773

$47,725
$2,196
$49,921

228
27
255

$14,724
$1,744
$16,468

36,858

$15,061,454

Respondents - State NPDES Authorities

590

$21,382

Respondents - State Pretreatment Approval Authorities

24

$870

Respondents - Local Pretreatment Control Authorities

72

$2,402

Total Annual Respondent Burden and Cost

37,544

$15,086,107

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the hours
and costs incurred for all activities.
(i) Respondent Tally
The bottom line respondent burden (affected facilities and local and State authorities) is
presented in Table 6.13.

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 24

Table 6.13 Total Estimated Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (2004 Dollars)
Category

Number of
Respondents

Total Hours
Per Year

Total Labor
Cost Per Year

Total
Annualized
Capital Costs

Total Annual
O&M Costs
(analytical costs)

Respondents Subpart B and E
mills

94

36,858

$1,241,971

$0

$13,819,483

Respondents State authorities

34

614

$22,251

$0

$0

Respondents Local authorities
(pretreatment)

10

72

$2,402

$0

$0

Total
Respondents

138

37,544

$1,266,624

$0

$13,819,483

(ii) The Agency Tally
The bottom line Agency tally is presented in Table 6.14 (see supporting assumptions in Section
6(c)).
Table 6.14 Total Estimated Annual Agency Burden and Cost Summary (2004 Dollars)
Category
Agency

Total Hours Per
Year

Total Labor
Cost Per Year

Total Annualized
Capital Costs

Total Annual O & M
Costs

238

$8,625

$0

$0

6(f) Reasons for Changes in Burden
As this is a renewal information collection, the change in burden for this collection
includes adjusting from 2000 to 2004 dollars, to eliminate the initial burden and costs incurred
by respondents that were already accounted for in the original ICR (No. 1878.01)., and to
account for new NPDES authorized states
6(g) Burden Statement
EPA estimates that there are 94 affected mills (direct and indirect dischargers) in Subpart
B and Subpart E of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category with a total of 144
bleach lines. These mills will perform the additional sample collection and pollutant analyses;
reporting and recordkeeping to permit and pretreatment authorities, as part of NPDES permit and
pretreatment control requirements, will not change significantly from existing conditions. EPA
estimates affected mills to incur a burden of 35,830 hours per year for sample collection,
corresponding to a cost of $1,175,582. Contracted laboratories are anticipated to perform all
required analyses of collected samples for minimum monitoring with an estimated O&M cost for
all mill respondents of $13,819,483. Annual reporting burden incurred by affected facilities is

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 25

estimated to be 773 hours for a cost of $49,921, and annual recordkeeping burden is estimated to
be 255 hours for a cost of $16,468 per year. Total mill respondent burden for the minimum
monitoring requirements is estimated to be 36,858 labor hours at a cost of $15,061,454
($1,175,582 + $13,819,483 + $49,921 + $16,468). On a per-facility basis, mills are anticipated
to incur an average of 392 hours per year for sampling, reporting and recordkeeping for monthly
DMRs or PCRs for an average annual cost of $160,228, including O&M costs.
NPDES-authorized States are estimated to incur 590 burden hours for processing and
analyzing monitoring data captured in submitted DMRs and for follow-up activities associated
with 20 percent of all DMRs submitted. This hourly burden translates to an estimated $21,382
annually for these activities.
Local pretreatment control authorities are estimated to incur 72 burden hours for
processing and analyzing monitoring data captured in submitted PCRs and for follow-up
activities associated with 20 percent of all PCRs submitted. This hourly burden translates to an
estimated $2,402 annually for these activities. State pretreatment approval authorities are
estimated to incur 24 burden hours per year for support of local follow-up activities at a cost of
$870.
EPA burden is estimated to be 238 hours per year for support of State follow-up activities
as well as acting as the NPDES permit authority for 2 mills where the States are not authorized
NPDES authorities at a cost of $8,625.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the
use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID No. OW-2004-0025, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An
electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 26

docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (OW-20040025) and OMB control number (2040-0243) in any correspondence.

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 27

Appendix A: Supporting Assumptions and Calculations
I.

Flow-Proportioned Composite Sampling

The Preamble to the Cluster Rules specifies “For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic
compounds, compliance with the effluent limitations and standards can be demonstrated by
collecting separate samples of the acid and alkaline discharges and preparing a
flow-proportioned composite of these samples, resulting in one sample of bleach plant effluent
for analysis”. See 63 FR 18569.
To prepare a flow-proportioned composite, the operator: 1) must know the flow in each
sampled sewer; 2) add them together to estimate total flow; and 3) calculate the proportion of the
flow attributable to each sewer. Knowing the total volume of sample required for analysis, the
operator must then: 1) calculate the volume of sample from each sewer that should make up the
total sample volume; 2) measure out each volume; and 3) combine and mix them together. This
mixture is then dispensed into the sample containers and sent to the laboratories for analysis.
It is assumed that for 50 percent of the bleach lines, flow-proportioned composites will
be prepared, requiring 15 minutes of operator labor. For these bleach lines there will be one
instead of two samples to be analyzed for AOX, TCDD, TCDF, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic
compounds.

II.

Example of Total Sampling Burden calculation:

Refer to Tables 6.2 and 6.3
Assuming a manual grab composite methodology is used for TCDD, TCDF and the 12
chlorinated phenolics, the labor requirement may be estimated as follows:
5 minutes/point/grab x 6 grabs/sample = 30 minutes/point/sample
Assuming a manual grab composite methodology is used for chloroform, the labor requirement
may be estimated as follows:
15 minutes/ point /grab x 6 grabs/sample = 90 minutes/sample
For Subpart B mills, the annual sampling burden is:
Daily AOX sampling of final effluent (direct dischargers):
75 mills x 1 final effluent discharge/mill x 0.25 hours/day x 365 day/year = 6,844 hours
Daily AOX sampling of bleach plants (indirect dischargers):
14 bleach lines x 2 sample/bleach line x 0.5 hours/day x 365 day/year = 5,110 hours
Monthly flow-proportioned composites for AOX (indirect dischargers):
50 percent of 14 bleach lines x 0.25 hours/day x 365 days/year =

639 hours

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 28

Weekly chloroform sampling at bleach plant:
134 bleach lines x 2 sample/bleach line x 1.5 hours/week x 52 weeks/year =
20,904 hours
Monthly TCDD, TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics sampling at the bleach plant:
134 bleach lines x 2 sample/bleach line x 0.5 hours/month x 12 months/year =
1,608 hours
Monthly flow-proportioned composites for TCDD, TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics:
50 percent of 134 bleach lines x 0.25 hours/month x 12 months/year =
201 hours
TOTAL ANNUAL SAMPLING BURDEN FOR SUBPART B MILLS

35,306

For Subpart E mills, the annual sampling burden is:
Daily AOX sampling of final effluent (direct dischargers):
5 mills x 1 final effluent discharge/mill x 0.25 hours/day x 365 day/year = 456 hours
Monthly TCDD, TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics sampling at the bleach plant
(Ammonium sulfite bleach lines):
3bleach lines x 2 sample/bleach line x 0.5 hours/month x 12 months/year =
36 hours
Monthly TCDD, TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics sampling at the bleach plant (Specialty
grade bleach lines):
2 bleach lines x 2 sample/bleach line x 0.5 hours/month x 12 months/year =
24 hours
Monthly flow-proportioned composites for TCDD, TCDF and the 12 chlorinated phenolics
(Ammonium sulfite and Specialty grade lines)
50 percent of 5 bleach lines x 0.25 hours/month x 12 months/year =
8 hours
TOTAL ANNUAL SAMPLING BURDEN FOR SUBPART E MILLS

III.

524 hours

Example of Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden calculation:

Refer to Tables 6.5 and 6.6
For Subpart B mills, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is:
Annual Reporting burden:
84 mills x 8.8 hours =

739 hours

Annual Recordkeeping burden:
84 mills x 0.17 hours/DMR x 12 DMRs +
84 mills x 0.67 hours/quarterly reports =

228 hours

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

TOTAL ANNUAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN
FOR SUBPART B MILLS

Page 29

967 hours

For Subpart E mills, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is:
Annual Reporting burden:
5 Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium Sulfite mills x 1.2 hours =
3 Ammonium Sulfite mills x 5.6 hours =
2 Specialty Grade mills x 5.6 hours =

6 hours
17 hours
11 hours

Annual Recordkeeping burden:
5 Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium Sulfite mills x 0.17 hours/DMR x 12 DMRs +
5 Calcium/Sodium/Magnesium Sulfite mills x 0.67 hours/quarterly reports =
14 hours
3 Ammonium Sulfite mills x 0.17 hours/DMR x 12 DMRs +
3 Ammonium Sulfite mills x 0.67 hours/quarterly reports =
8 hours
2 Specialty Grade mills x 0.17 hours/DMR x 12 DMRs +
2 Specialty Grade mills x 0.67 hours/quarterly reports =
5 hours
TOTAL ANNUAL REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN
FOR SUBPART E MILLS

IV.

61 hours

Example of TCDD, TCDF and 12 Chlorinated Phenolics Analyses per Year
calculation:

Refer to Table 6.10
For Subpart B mills, the analyses per year for TCDD, TCDF and 12 Chlorinated Phenolics is:
Flow-proportional composite (derived from 2 bleach plant samples per month per bleach line)
analysis:
50 percent of 134 bleach lines x 12 composites/year =

804 analyses

Bleach plant sampling (portion of Subpart B mills not conducting flow-proportioned composites)
analysis:
50 percent of 134 bleach lines x 2 samples/month x 12 months/year =
TOTAL TCDD, TCDF AND 12 CHLORINATED PHENOLICS
ANALYSES PER YEAR FOR SUBPART B MILLS

1,608 analyses

2,412 analyses

For Subpart E mills, the analyses per year for TCDD, TCDF and 12 Chlorinated Phenolics is:

Minimum Monitoring Requirements ICR

Page 30

Flow-proportional composite (derived from 2 bleach plant samples per month per bleach line)
analysis:
50 percent of 5 bleach lines (Ammonium Sulfite and Specialty Grade) x 12
composites/year =
30 analyses
Bleach plant sampling (portion of Subpart E mills not conducting flow-proportioned composites)
analysis:
50 percent of 5 bleach lines (Ammonium Sulfite and Specialty Grade) x 2 samples/month
x 12 months/year =
60 analyses
TOTAL TCDD, TCDF AND 12 CHLORINATED PHENOLICS
ANALYSES PER YEAR FOR SUBPART E MILLS
V.

90 analyses

Example of Labor Rate Adjustment Using the Employment Index Cost (EIC).

Technician wage in 2000 dollars (including overhead and fringe benefits): $56.91
December 1999 EIC value for the Goods-Producing Industries:
March 2000 EIC value for the Goods-Producing Industries:

139.7
141.3

January 2000 EIC estimate for the Goods-Producing Industries:
139.7+1 month*(141.3-139.7) / 3months =

140.2

December 2003 EIC value for the Goods-Producing Industries:
March 2004 EIC value for the Goods-Producing Industries:

158.7
159.9

January 2004 EIC estimate for the Goods-Producing Industries:
158.7+1 month*(159.9-158.7) / 3months =

159.1

Technician wage in 2004 dollars (including overhead and fringe benefits):
$ 56.91 * 159.1 / 140.2 =
$64.58

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR
BASELINE STANDARDS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE COAL
MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 434) COAL REMINING SUBCATEGORY AND
WESTERN ALKALINE COAL MINING SUBCATEGORY (RENEWAL)
EPA ICR No. 1944.03
OMB No. 2040-0239

May 11, 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460-0001

CONTENTS
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1(a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND
OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3(a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3(c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3(e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3(f)
Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3(g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4(a) Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4(b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4(c) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State NPDES Permitting Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5(a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5(d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6(a)(1)
Estimate of the Number of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Coal Remining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i

6(b)
6(c)
6(d)
6(e)

Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6(a)(2)
Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental
Monitoring Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Estimating Agency Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Reasons for Changes in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ii

1.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)

Title of the Information Collection

ICR: Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Source
Category - Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
(Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1944.03; OMB Control Number 2040-0239).
1(b)

Short Characterization/Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amended wastewater regulations for
the Coal Mining Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 434) on January 23, 2002. The final rule
established two new subcategories: one that addresses pre-existing discharges at coal remining
operations and a second that addresses drainage from coal mining reclamation and other nonprocess areas in the arid and semi-arid western United States. The new subcategories created a
set of standards and requirements for the specific waste streams defined in the final regulation.
The new subcategories did not otherwise change the existing regulations.
This Information Collection Request (ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to
the regulated community over a 3-year period (approximately 234 coal remining sites and 46
western alkaline surface coal mining sites) and 10 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit authorities for data collection and record keeping associated with
modeling, implementation of best management practices, baseline monitoring, and performance
monitoring requirements. An initial ICR was published on August 23, 2001 (EPA ICR No.
1944.02 and OMB Control Number 2040-0239). This document is a renewal ICR.
Coal Remining Subcategory
EPA established the new Coal Remining Subcategory to reduce severe and extensive
damage resulting from abandoned mine lands. Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines
is the number one water quality problem in Appalachian states. There are approximately 1.1
million acres of abandoned coal mine lands, over 9,000 miles of streams polluted by acid mine
drainage, and many miles of dangerous embankments, highwalls, and surface impoundments in
the Appalachian and mid-continent coal regions of the U.S. Prior to 1977, reclamation of mine
lands was not a federal requirement. Consequently, many coal mines have been abandoned, and
they continue to degrade the environment and pose health and safety risks.
In addition to posing severe environmental and safety problems, abandoned mine lands
may contain significant quantities of coal. Modern surface mining techniques now provide
operators with a more economical means of “remining,” thus enabling them to extract remaining
coal reserves. During remining operations, many of the problems associated with abandoned
mine lands are mitigated, because the operator becomes responsible for reclaiming the
abandoned land. Remining has the multiple benefits of improving water quality, removing
hazardous conditions, and utilizing remaining coal as a resource instead of mining virgin land.
1

Prior to EPA’s rule, 40 CFR Part 434 did not distinguish between pre-existing discharges
and new discharges from active mining areas. Requiring the treatment of pre-existing discharges
to meet existing standards was cost prohibitive, and, thus, a disincentive to remining activities.
EPA established the Coal Remining Subcategory to address these regulatory disincentives and to
encourage remining activities to reduce acid mine drainage and improve water quality.
The Coal Remining Subcategory only covers discharges resulting from previous mining
activities on lands that have been abandoned (termed a “pre-existing discharge). A coal
remining operator must determine baseline conditions by conducting monitoring and developing
a site-specific Pollution Abatement Plan designed to reduce the pollution load from pre-existing
discharges. The plan must incorporate the design and implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). EPA published the Coal Remining Best Management Practices Guidance
Manual (EPA 821-B-01-010), which describes effective BMPs based on mine land conditions.
Operators must ensure that the levels of iron, manganese, and net acidity in pre-existing
discharges do not worsen as a result of mining activities. They must follow a statistical
procedure outlined by EPA to routinely monitor their pollutant loadings.
When the rule was promulgated, EPA projected the annual compliance cost for the Coal
Remining Subcategory to be $0.33 to $0.76 million. The Agency projected total monetized
annual benefits to be $0.70 to $1.2 million. EPA expects the regulation to significantly increase
the rate at which abandoned mine lands are reclaimed, which will result in many non-water
quality benefits. These benefits, however, cannot be quantified.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
Prior to the establishment of this Subcategory, all reclamation areas throughout the U.S.,
regardless of climate, topography, or type of mine drainage (i.e., acid or alkaline), were required
to meet the same discharge limits. EPA concluded, however, that there are unique
environmental conditions in the arid west that are much different than those in other coal mining
areas; thus, a need for this Subcategory was established.
In arid regions, the natural vegetative cover is sparse and rainfall is commonly received
during localized, high-intensity, short-duration storms. These conditions contribute to flashfloods and turbulent flows that transport large amounts of sediment. Prior to establishment of
this Subcategory, regulations basically required the construction of large sediment ponds to
control sediment. The construction of these ponds to contain all runoff from areas that naturally
contain large amounts of sediment can be difficult and can result in non-water quality impacts
that harm the environment, including disturbing the natural hydrologic balance, reducing
groundwater recharge, reducing water availability, and impacting large areas of land for pond
construction. The Subcategory was established to address these impacts.
The Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory does not affect limitations for active
mine wastewater. A coal mining operator must design and implement BMPs to maintain the
average annual sediment yield equal to or below pre-mined, undisturbed conditions. This
2

ensures that natural conditions are maintained and does not allow a coal mining operator to
increase the discharge of sediment over natural conditions. To achieve these results, the operator
must conduct sediment yield monitoring, then develop a site-specific Sediment Control Plan
(BMPs) using established watershed modeling techniques.
EPA estimated that the rule would result in a net cost savings to all affected surface mine
operators and, at worst, would be cost-neutral to affected underground operators. EPA projected
that the Subcategory would result in annualized monetary benefits of $40,000 to $750,000.

2.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)

Need/Authority for the Collection

In January 2002, EPA amended wastewater regulations for the Coal Mining Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 434) by adding two new subcategories, the purpose of which was to
address environmental issues not covered adequately by existing regulations. The addition of
these subcategories is expected to (1) reduce severe and extensive damage resulting from
abandoned mine lands in the Appalachian and mid-continent coal regions and (2) reduce adverse
environmental impacts resulting from the predominant use of sedimentation ponds for sediment
control in the arid and semi-arid western coal regions.
These regulations were promulgated under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 308,
402, 501, and 502 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,
1342, 1361, and 1362.
The CWA authorizes EPA to include Best Management Practices in effluent limitations
guidelines and standards regulations. EPA’s legal authority for regulations based on BMPs is
found in section 402(a)(1), section 402(a)(2), and section 501(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR 122.44(d). The BMP regulation is consistent
with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Public Law 101-508.
2(b)

Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The primary users of the information generated under this ICR will be the coal mining
companies that perform remining operations at abandoned mine lands and those companies that
perform coal mining reclamation activities in the arid and semi-arid coal regions of the western
U.S. The data will also be used by NPDES control authorities in establishing baseline standards
and in making compliance determinations.

3.
NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA

3

3(a)

Nonduplication

EPA’s regulations for the two Subcategories build on, but do not duplicate, related
regulations pertinent to the Coal Mining Point Source Category. These other regulations
include those at 40 CFR Part 434, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the
Rahall Amendment. Prior to the establishment of the two additional Subcategories, existing
EPA regulations applied to four Subcategories only, including Coal Preparation Plants and Coal
Preparation Plant Associated Areas; Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage; Alkaline Mine
Drainage; and Post-Mining Areas.
In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA),
30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. To address the environmental problems associated with coal mining on a
nationwide basis. The Act created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) within the Department of Interior. Furthermore, it gave the office broad authority to
regulate specific management practices before, during, and after mining operations. OSMRE has
promulgated comprehensive regulations to control both surface coal mining and the surface
effects of underground coal mining (30 CFR parts 700 et seq). Title IV of SMCRA addresses
the problem of presently abandoned coal mines by authorizing and funding abandoned mine
reclamation projects. EPA worked extensively with OSMRE in the preparation of the
regulations for the Subcategories to ensure that the requirements were consistent with and not
duplicative of OSMRE requirements.
As part of the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress added section 301(p), often
called the Rahall Amendment, to provide incentives for remining abandoned mine lands that predate passage of SMCRA in 1977. The Rahall Amendment was intended to encourage remining
by no longer requiring operators to treat degraded pre-existing discharges to the Best Available
Technology (BAT) levels established in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 434. Despite the statutory
authority provided, coal mining companies remained hesitant to pursue remining without formal
EPA approval and guidelines. The Subcategories thus are EPA’s response to industry’s concern.
The regulations are consistent with, but not identical to, the Rahall Amendment.
Coal Remining Subcategory
As in the first ICR (EPA ICR No. 1944.02 and OMB Control No. 2040-0239), EPA
estimates that the baseline determination and annual monitoring required under the Coal
Remining Subcategory impacts sites in 10 states. The monitoring requirements of the regulation
are already required in whole or part by seven of the 10 states issuing Rahall permits for preexisting discharges at remining sites on abandoned mine lands. Three of the 10 states do not
issue Rahall permits. EPA believes monitoring burden needs to be assessed for these states.
Monitoring burden further needs to be assessed for some portion of the 10 states whose
requirements are less than those required under the Subcategory regulations. This incremental
data collection and reporting burden for the baseline determination and annual monitoring is not
provided elsewhere.

4

The SMCRA permit application process requires a coal mining operator to submit an
extensive operation and reclamation plan, documentation, and analysis to OSMRE or the
primacy permitting authority for approval. The requirements for the operation and reclamation
plan are specified in 30 CFR part 780 for surface mining permit applications and part 784 for
underground mining permit applications. Coal mining operators are required to provide a
description of coal mining operations; a plan for reclaiming mined lands; a plan for revegetating
mined lands; geologic information; hydrologic information including a description of baseline
ground water and surface water characteristics under seasonal conditions; and an analysis of the
hydrologic impacts caused by the mining activity. The plan must include a probable hydrologic
consequences determination to determine the impacts of the mining on existing hydrologic
conditions and a hydrologic reclamation plan to show measures for reducing impacts and to meet
water quality laws and regulations. Furthermore, the coal mining regulatory authority is required
to conduct a cumulative hydrologic impact analysis of the proposed operation and all anticipated
mining on surface water and ground water systems.
EPA, therefore, believes that many requirements for the Pollution Abatement Plan will be
contained in the operations and reclamation sections of an approved SMCRA permit. However,
EPA or the state NPDES permitting authority retains the authority to require additional or
expanded BMPs as necessary to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs is consistent
with CWA requirements.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
For discharges at western alkaline coal mining sites, EPA incorporated BMP standards
into the regulation by requiring that a site-specific Sediment Control Plan be developed and
implemented. The requirements of the plan are consistent with SMCRA requirements for
mining operations as discussed above. Therefore, in most cases, the BMP requirements for the
Sediment Control Plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan and will not result in
duplication in reporting burden. However, EPA or the state NPDES permitting authority retain
the authority to recommend additional or incremental BMPs, as necessary, to ensure that
implementation of the identified BMPs is the best available technology economically achievable.
EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency has also consulted other sources of
information, such as the SMCRA and Rahall requirements discussed above, to determine if
similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere. These examinations have revealed no
additional duplicative reporting requirements.

5

3(b)

Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), EPA solicited
comments on the proposed information collection in the Federal Register prior to submitting
this renewal ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (69 FR 52883, August 30, 2004).
EPA received no comments.
3(c)

Consultations

EPA discussed development of the Subcategory regulations and the attendant record
keeping and reporting requirements with the following organizations:
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC)
The National Mining Association (NMA)
Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB)
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
Other states
Tribes
Industry representatives
Other interested stakeholders

3(d)

Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

The remining regulations require operators to collect data at a minimum frequency of
once per month per pre-existing discharge point for a 12-month period to enable a baseline
standard to be established and at a frequency of once per month per pre-existing discharge point
thereafter to demonstrate compliance. The annual array of monthly monitoring data is necessary
to determine an average discharge value and the variability associated with that value.
Moreover, the frequency of collection allows for data representative of seasonal conditions.
Without an adequate duration and frequency of sampling, the statistical procedures would often
fail to detect genuine exceedance of baseline conditions or could establish baseline levels that
are either too low or too high.
With regard to routine monitoring, EPA considers the frequency of data collection to be
the smallest that would allow a significant probability of revealing a substantial increase above
baseline levels within one year. If a facility fails to demonstrate compliance with the baseline
standards, the monitoring frequency may be increased so that the permitting authority may
monitor the pre-existing discharge more closely and affect corrective action to re-establish
compliance. The duration, frequency, and seasonal distribution of sampling are important
aspects of a sampling plan, and may effect the precision and accuracy of statistical estimates as
much as the number of samples. To avoid systematic bias, sampling, during and after baseline
determination, should systematically cover all periods of the year during which substantially
high or low discharge flows may be expected.
6

3(e)

General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2).
3(f)

Confidentiality

EPA does not expect that any confidential business information or trade secrets will be
required from coal mining operators as part of this ICR. If information submitted in conjunction
with this ICR were to contain confidential business information, the respondent may request that
the information be treated as such. All data so designated will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40
CFR part 2. This information will be maintained according to procedures outlined in EPA’s
Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the
CWA, effluent data may not be treated as confidential.
3(g)

Sensitive Questions
The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)

Respondents and SIC Codes

The respondents for this ICR will be approximately 234 coal remining sites on
abandoned mine lands with pre-existing discharges located in the Appalachian and midcontinent coal regions and approximately 46 surface coal mining reclamation sites in the arid and
semi-arid western coal regions of the United States. These sites fall under Standard Industrial
Classification or SIC codes 1221 (Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining), 1222
(Bituminous Coal Underground Mining), and 1231 (Anthracite Mining). The corresponding
North American Industrial Classification System or NAICS codes for these industries are
212111, 212112, and 212113, respectively. Government respondents are expected to be the 10
states that issue remining permits. These authorities will prepare new NPDES permits in the
implementation of the regulation and will technically review a site’s SMCRA reclamation plan
to assess the adequacy of the BMPs incorporated.

7

4(b)

Information Requested

The regulations at 40 CFR 434.72 to 434.75 and 434.82 to 434.85 include the following
major components:
Coal Remining Subcategory
C

Coal remining operators are required to perform and report baseline determinations for
each pre-existing discharge for net acidity, total suspended solids, iron (total), and
manganese (total) at a frequency of once per month for 12 months. Thereafter,
monitoring shall occur monthly. Monitoring may be increased if baseline standards are
not met.

C

Coal remining operators are required to employ appropriate, site-specific best
management practices to result in the potential for improved water quality. This
requirement is satisfied by implementation of a site-specific Pollution Abatement Plan,
subject to the review and approval of the NPDES permit authority.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

C

Western coal mining operators are required to apply appropriate, site-specific best
management practices that will result in average annual sediment yields that will not be
greater than background levels from pre-mined, undisturbed conditions. This
requirement is satisfied by implementation of a site-specific Sediment Control Plan
developed using a watershed model and that describes best management practices. The
Sediment Control Plan and model results are subject to the review and approval of the
NPDES permit authority.

4(c)

Respondent Activities
Coal Remining Subcategory

C

Prepare basic information. Operators must collect baseline determination and
monitoring data, develop the Pollution Abatement Plan (which includes applicable
BMPs) that will be described in the SMCRA Permit Reclamation Plan, and make reports
to the NPDES permit authority.

C

Maintain records. All coal mining and remining operators must keep records of the
monitoring information required by the regulation.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

C

Prepare basic information. Applicable operators must conduct modeling of sediment
yield, develop a Sediment Control Plan (which includes applicable BMPs) that will be
8

described in the SMCRA Permit Reclamation Plan, and make reports to the NPDES
permit authority.
State NPDES Permitting Authorities
C

Prepare NPDES permits. State NPDES permitting authorities must review and approve
baseline determinations, monitoring data and Pollution Abatement Plans or Sediment
Control Plans, and incorporate baseline standards and BMP provisions into NPDES
permits.

C

Conduct periodic reviews. State respondents are authorized to conduct periodic reviews
of monitoring reports and SMCRA reclamation plans to assess compliance with baseline
standards and BMP conditions contained in the site’s NPDES permit.

5.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)

Agency Activities

Upon approval of this ICR, permittees must maintain records as described above under
Section 4(c). At least annually, they must submit a report to the NPDES authority summarizing
the results of monitoring, the number and dates of any exceedances of baseline standards and
corrective actions taken when standards have been exceeded. The NPDES permitting authority
is authorized to review best management practices described in a site’s SMCRA Permit
Reclamation Plan, conduct compliance audits of facility records, review the data, and where
necessary, conduct follow-up activities. Follow-up activities may include informal contact with
the permittee (by telephone or letter) to discuss the causes of any exceedances of baseline
standards and the actions taken to correct the exceedences. The NPDES permit authority may
also find it helpful to review monitoring records when developing future NPDES permit
conditions.
5(b)

Collection Methodology and Management
Coal Remining Subcategory

The data collection and management methodology for this Subcategory includes
collection and reporting of baseline determination and monitoring data and reporting of the sitespecific Pollution Abatement Plan. This information is to be reported to the NPDES permit
authority. Components of the site-specific Pollution Abatement Plan are reported as part of the
site’s SMCRA permit application to the OSMRE permit authority. EPA believes that the BMP
requirements for the Pollution Abatement Plan will generally be satisfied by an approved
SMCRA plan and will therefore not duplicate reporting burden. However, EPA or the state
NPDES permitting authority retains the authority to recommend additional or incremental
9

BMPs, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs are the best available
technology economically achievable.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
EPA expects that the components required under the Sediment Control Plan will largely
be satisfied by the SMCRA permit application to the OSMRE permit authority for this
Subcategory. EPA assumes that the requirements for the Sediment Control Plan will largely be
satisfied by materials generated as part of SMCRA permit application. However, the Sediment
Control Plan and model results will remain subject to review and approval by the NPDES permit
authority.
5(c)

Small Entity Flexibility

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the EPA Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
5(d)

Collection Schedule

The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to occur
according to the following schedule for each Subcategory:
Coal Remining Subcategory
C
C
C

Collect and report baseline determination data for pre-existing discharges: Due at
the time of permit application.
Submit Pollution Abatement Plan as part of a site’s SMCRA permit application:
Due at the time of permit application.
Collect and report subsequent monitoring data for pre-existing discharges: Due
with Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).

Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
C
C

Report sediment yield modeling results for a reclamation site: Due at the time of
permit application.
Submit a Sediment Control Plan: Due at the time of permit application.

10

6.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)

Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

Tables 1 and 2 present estimates of the initial and recurring respondent burden
(respectively) for labor hours and costs associated with this ICR. The assumptions used in
determining the respondent burden and costs are summarized below and footnoted in each table.
The numbers presented in this ICR are based on assumptions consistent with those used in
EPA’s Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment but are presented in a different format.
Dollar estimates in this ICR are not directly comparable because they differ in their use and
presentation, including the use of midpoint values versus estimate ranges, the time period of
analysis, and annualization of dollar values.
Table 3 presents estimates of the initial and recurring Agency burden and costs
associated with this ICR. A summary of the respondent’s burden hours and costs is presented in
Table 4.
6(a)(1)

Estimate of the Number of Respondents
Coal Remining Subcategory

The potential number of coal remining respondents is documented in an EPA
memorandum dated September 27, 1999 from John Tinger, EPA to Kristen Strellec, EPA,
Subject: Final Estimation of Facilities Affected by Proposed Remining Subcategory. This
memorandum estimates that approximately 78 permits per year may be issued. The duration of
this ICR is three years and therefore the potential respondents over this time frame is (78 x 3)
234. EPA estimates the same number of respondents for this renewal ICR.
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
The potential number of respondents in this Subcategory is documented in the 1998
Keystone Coal Industry Manual. Using information from this reference, EPA estimates that there
are approximately 46 potential respondents.
The Agency also compiled profile information on 24 existing underground coal mines in
the arid and semi-arid western states. Information provided by EPA’s Office of Surface Mines
indicates that underground mines will incur zero incremental modeling costs due to the small
acreage and lack of complexity associated with these reclamation areas.
Although there are a total of 46 authorized NPDES states (45 states and 1 U.S. territory),
the number of state NPDES authorities estimated to be impacted by the rule is 10. On September
3, 1998, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) distributed a Solicitation Sheet to
member states in support of continuing efforts to collect data and information required for
proposal of a remining subcategory under 40 CFR 434. The solicitation sheet was intended to
11

gather information necessary to assess current industry remining activity and potential. IMCC
member states estimated that there were 150 mining companies in 10 states actively involved in
remining activities. Of these 10 states, seven issued Rahall-type permits, while three did not (see
Table A). EPA believes the 1998 estimate by IMCC members is still representative of the
industry.
6(a)(2)

Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring
Burden and Cost

The extent to which EPA will require additional monitoring for remining sites depends
on the requirements the states incorporate in their Rahall remining permits. Table A below
summarizes the number of samples or sites per year each state requires in their Rahall remining
permits in terms of baseline determination and routine monitoring and then incremental
monitoring for each of these categories. This table also shows the number of sites expected to be
permitted under the regulations annually by state.

12

Table A. Baseline Determination and Incremental Monitoring Required
State

State Required
Baseline
Determination
Monitoring
(Samples/Site/Yr)

Incremental Baseline
Determination
Monitoring
(Samples/Site/Yr)

State Required
Annual
Monitoring
(Samples/Site/
Yr)

Incremental
Annual
Monitoring
(Samples/Site/Yr)

Estimated
Annual
Number of
Sites to be
Permitted

AL

6

6

12

0

0

IL

NA

12

NA

12

0

IN

NA

12

NA

12

5

KY

6

6

12

0

7

MD

12

0

12

0

1

OH

12

0

4

8

21

PA

12

0

12

0

26

TN

NA

12

NA

12

9

VA

12

0

12

0

9

WV

12

0

12

0

0

Total
78
NA = Rahall permits are not issued in these states.
Source: Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Coal Mining Industry: Remining and Western Alkaline Subcategories (EPA-821-B-01-013).

EPA assumes for mine sites in Indiana and Tennessee that baseline determination
monitoring and annual monitoring costs will be required for all of the reporting requirements. In
addition, EPA assumes that flow metering from an installed weir will also be required for mine
sites in these two states. For all other states, EPA assumes that flow metering will already be
required and installed as part of the state Rahall remining permit program. Tables B and C
below present the respondent burden and monitoring costs associated with incremental
monitoring required by the Subcategory regulations for baseline determination monitoring and
annual monitoring, respectively. Assumptions made for determining the respondent burden and
costs are footnoted at the end of the tables.

13

Table B. Respondent Burden and Costs for Baseline Determination Monitoring
State

Incremental Baseline
Determination
Monitoring
(Total Samples) (a)

Labor Burden
(Hrs)
(b)

Labor Cost ($)
(c)

Monitoring Cost ($)
(d)

AL

0

0

0

0

IL

0

0

0

0

IN

720

540

16,497

92,909

KY

504

378

11,548

13,376

MD

0

0

0

0

OH

0

0

0

0

PA

0

0

0

0

TN

1,296

972

29,695

167,236

VA

0

0

0

0

WV

0

0

0

0

Total

2,520

1,890

57,740

273,521

(a) Assumes 4 pre-existing discharge points per site. The average number of pre-existing discharges per site is based
on a review of the number of pre-existing discharge points per site from the 119 Study, the 104 Study and the
Pennsylvania Coal Remining Database. Total samples = Incremental annual monitoring (samples/site/yr) x
Estimated annual number of sites to be permitted/year x 3 years x 4 pre-existing discharge points/site.
(b) Assumes 0.75 hours/sample of labor burden based on PADEP estimates.
(c) Assumes a labor cost of $30.55/hour. This estimate is up by $1.55 from the initial ICR. The initial ICR used an
estimated labor cost provided by the PADEP. This ICR escalates that cost to 2004 dollars using the Consumer Price
Index.
(d) Assumes a sample analysis cost of $23.17/sample and mileage costs of $3.37/sample for a total of $26.54/sample
(up by $1.32/sample from the previous ICR). The current ICR escalated the costs in the previous ICR to 2004 dollars
using the Consumer Price Index, thereby resulting in these increases. Indiana sample analysis costs = 720 x $26.54
= $19,109 (an increase of $965 from initial ICR). Kentucky sample analysis costs = 504 x $26.54 = $13,376 (an
increase of $675 from initial ICR). Tennessee sample analysis costs = 1,296 x $26.54 = $34,396 (an increase of
$1,737 from initial ICR). For Indiana and Tennessee assumes installed weir costs of $1,230 based on escalation of
2002 cost estimates from Weir & Flume Sales Company and Tarco Tech. Industries to 2004 dollars (resulting in an
increase of $62 from initial ICR). Indiana will have 5 sites/yr x 3 years x 4 pre-existing discharge points/site x
$1,230/weir = $73,800 (an increase of $3,720 from initial ICR). Tennessee will have 9 sites/yr x 3 years x 4 preexisting discharge points/site x $1,230/weir = $132,840 (an increase of $6,696 from initial ICR).

14

Table C. Respondent Burden and Costs for Annual Monitoring
State

Incremental Annual
Monitoring
(Total Samples) (a)

Labor Burden
(Hrs)
(b)

Labor Cost ($)
(c)

Monitoring Cost ($)
(d)

AL

0

0

0

0

IL

0

0

0

0

IN

720

540

16,497

19,109

KY

0

0

0

0

MD

0

0

0

0

OH

2,016

1,512

46,192

53,505

PA

0

0

0

0

TN

1,296

972

29,695

34,396

VA

0

0

0

0

WV

0

0

0

0

Total

4,032

3,024

92,384

107,010

(a) Assumes 4 pre-existing discharge points per site. The average number of pre-existing discharges per site is based
on a review of the number of pre-existing discharge points per site from the 119 Study, the 104 Study and the
Pennsylvania Coal Remining Database. Total samples = Incremental annual monitoring (samples/site/yr) x
Estimated annual number of sites to be permitted/year x 3 years x 4 pre-existing discharge points/site.
(b) Assumes 0.75 hours/sample of labor burden based on PADEP estimates.
(c) Assumes a labor cost of $30.55/hour. This estimate is up by $1.55 from the initial ICR. The initial ICR used an
estimated labor cost provided by the PADEP. This ICR escalates that cost to 2004 dollars using the Consumer Price
Index.
(d) Assumes a sample analysis cost of $23.17/sample and mileage costs of $3.37/sample for a total of $26.54/sample
(up by $1.32/sample from the previous ICR). The current ICR escalated the costs in the previous ICR to 2004 dollars
using the Consumer Price Index, thereby resulting in this increase.

15

Table 1. Initial Respondent Burden and Costs
Subcategory
Coal Remining at
AML with preexisting
discharges

Western Alkaline
Coal Mining with
Sediment Control

Activity

Labor
Hours

Labor Costs
($)

Monitoring
Costs ($)

Total Initial
Costs ($)

Baseline Determination
Monitoring

1,890

57,740

273,521

331,261

Development of sitespecific remining BMP
plan

(a)

(a)

(a)

0

NPDES Control Authority
- review of BMP plan and
permit preparation

8,190 (b)

329,566

0

329,566

Sediment Yield Modeling

(a)

(a)

0

0

Development of sitespecific sediment control
BMPs

(a)

(a)

(a)

0

NPDES Control Authority
1,610 (b)
(c)
0
64,786
- review of modeling and
64,786
BMP plan and permit
preparation
(a) The hour and cost burden associated with these activities is already covered by the “Surface Mining Permit
Applications - Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan - 30 CFR part 780" ICR, OMB Control
Number 1029-0036.
(b) Assumes 25 hrs/plan for review (based on the SMCRA ICR burden for review of the reclamation plan) and 10
hrs/site for NPDES permit preparation for a total of 35 hours/site. For coal remining sites: 35 hrs/permit x 234
potential permits = 8,190 hours. For western alkaline sites: 35 hrs/permit x 46 potential reclamation sites in the arid
and semi-arid western states = 1,610 hours.
(c) The median salary for state and local white collar workers, excluding sales, is $25.15 or $52,312 per year based
on 2,080 labor hours per year (see Supplementary Table 3.1, State and local government, selected occupations: mean
hourly earnings and percentiles, all workers, National Compensation Survey, July 2003, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics at http://stats.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0636.pdf). This hourly rate is $5.35 higher than the rate included in
the initial ICR, reflecting changes in compensation for state and local employees over time. Overhead costs for state
and local employees are estimated to be 60 percent (EPA ICR Handbook), or $15.09 per hour, which results in a
total hourly rate of $40.24/hour. 8,190 hours x $40.24 = $329,566, an increase of $70,107 from the initial ICR.
1,610 hours x $40.24 = $64,786, an increase of $13,781 from initial ICR.

16

Table 2. Recurring Respondent Burden and Costs*
Subcategory

Coal Remining at
AML with preexisting discharge

Activity

Annual Monitoring

Labor
Hours/Yr.

Labor
Costs
($/Yr.)

Monitoring
Costs ($/Yr.)

Total
Recurring
Costs ($/Yr.)

3,024

92,384

107,010

199,394

NPDES Control Authority
2,340 (a)
94,162 (b)
0
review of post- baseline
monitoring data
* There is no recurring respondent burden for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.

94,162

(a) Assumes 10 hrs/site/year for review x 234 potential remining sites = 2,340 hours/yr.
(b) Using $40.24/hour x 2,340 hrs/yr. = $94,162.

6(b)

Estimating Agency Burden

EPA estimates its initial burden to be one hour per site and an annual labor burden of
eight hours per site. Table 3 below summarizes the initial and recurring Agency burden.
Table 3.
Subcategory

Activity

Coal Remining at
Abandoned Mine
Lands

Western Alkaline
Coal Mining with
Sediment Control

Initial and Recurring Agency Burden
Hours/Site

No. of Sites

Total Cost (a)

Initial Burden

1

234

$9,416

Recurring Burden

8

234

$75,329/year

Initial Burden

1

46

$1,851

Recurring Burden

8

46

$14,808/year

(a) = Assuming $40.24/hour. Total cost is equal to the hours/site x no. of sites x $/hr.

17

6(c)

Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table
Table 4 presents the bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA.
Table 4. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA
Category

Total Labor Hours

Total Costs

Respondents (Coal Remining) Initial Burden

1,890 (3-yr total)

$331,261

Respondents (Western Alkaline
Coal Mining) - Initial Burden

0

0

Subtotal

1,890 (3-yr total)

$331,261

Respondents (Coal Remining) Annual Burden

3,024 (3-yr total)

$199,394

Respondents (Western Alkaline
Coal Mining) - Annual Burden

0

$0

Subtotal

3,024 (3-yr total)

$199,394

Respondents - NPDES Control
Authority - Initial Burden

9,800 (3-yr total)

$394,352

Respondents - NPDES Control
Authority - Annual Burden

2,340 (annual)
7,020 (3-yr total)

$94,162 (annual)
$282,482 (3-yr total)

Subtotal

16,820 (3-yr total)

$676,838

Total (3-year ICR lifetime)

21,734 (3-yr total)

$1,207,493

7,245 (annual)

$402,498

EPA - Initial Burden

280

$11,267

EPA - Annual Burden

2,240/year

$90,138/year

Total Annual Labor Hours &
Costs

The initial burden for coal mining and remining sites under the rule is estimated at 1,890
hours and $331,261 for baseline determination monitoring at coal remining sites. The initial
burden associated with preparation of a site’s Pollution Abatement Plan or Sediment Control
Plan is already covered by an applicable SMCRA ICR. The annual burden for coal mining and
remining sites under the rule is estimated at 3,024 hours and $199,394 for annual monitoring at
coal remining sites.
The initial burden for NPDES control authorities is estimated at 9,800 hours and
$394,352 for review of SMCRA remining and reclamation plans (which include BMPs) and
preparation of the NPDES permit. The annual burden for NPDES control authorities is
estimated at 2,340 hours and $94,162 for review of annual monitoring data at coal remining
18

sites.
The annual burden is 7,245 hours and $402,498.
6(d)

Reasons for Changes in Burden

The previous ICR had mistakenly used 3-year burden hours to calculate associated costs.
This renewal ICR has corrected that error, resulting in decreased burden hours and costs
presented as annual averages.
6(e)

Burden Statement

For the Coal Remining Subcategory, the public reporting burden is estimated to average
21 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time for collecting and submitting
baseline and annual monitoring results. For the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory,
there is projected to be no additional public reporting burden. For the NPDES permitting
authorities, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 405 hours per respondent per
year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection
of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the
use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID No. OW-2004-0026, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An
electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the
docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information
19

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (OW-20040026) and OMB control number (2040-0239) in any correspondence.

20