Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal)

ICR 201810-2050-006

OMB: 2050-0035

Federal Form Document

Forms and Documents
Document
Name
Status
Supporting Statement A
2018-10-24
IC Document Collections
IC ID
Document
Title
Status
41675
Modified
ICR Details
2050-0035 201810-2050-006
Active 201409-2050-001
EPA/OLEM 0820.14
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal)
Revision of a currently approved collection   No
Regular
Approved without change 01/29/2020
Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA) 10/31/2018
Approval is for one year due to four month delay in response to OMB comments.
  Inventory as of this Action Requested Previously Approved
01/31/2023 36 Months From Approved 01/31/2020
644,345 0 80,746
526,989 0 253,519
63,345 0 40,040

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress directed EPA to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. The core of the national waste management program is the regulation of hazardous waste from generation to transport to treatment and eventual disposal, or from "cradle to grave." Section 3001(d) of RCRA requires EPA to develop standards for small quantity generators. Section 3002 of RCRA states, among other things, that EPA shall establish requirements for hazardous waste generators regarding recordkeeping practices. Section 3002 also requires EPA to establish standards on appropriate use of containers by generators. Finally, Section 3017 of RCRA specifies requirements for individuals exporting hazardous waste from the United States, including a notification of the intent to export, and an annual report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all exported hazardous waste.

US Code: 42 USC 3002 Name of Law: Solid Waste Disposal Act
  
None

Not associated with rulemaking

  83 FR 31140 07/03/2018
83 FR 54344 10/29/2018
No

1
IC Title Form No. Form Name
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards

  Total Approved Previously Approved Change Due to New Statute Change Due to Agency Discretion Change Due to Adjustment in Estimate Change Due to Potential Violation of the PRA
Annual Number of Responses 644,345 80,746 0 0 563,599 0
Annual Time Burden (Hours) 526,989 253,519 0 0 273,470 0
Annual Cost Burden (Dollars) 63,345 40,040 0 0 23,305 0
No
No
Three factors explain the overall change in the total estimated burden. First, there was an increase in the number of SQGs and LQGs. In estimating the hourly burden for the 2010 ICR, the Agency estimated both a low and high-end estimate for SQGs but provided a high end for purposes of estimated hourly burden. In the 2014, the Agency estimated of the SQG universe by taking the average of both the low and high end SQG universes. In this ICR, the Agency went back to using the high-end estimated hourly burden to ensure that all possible burden is captured. Second, this ICR incorporates the applicable burden from the 2016 Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which added requirements such as LQG contingency plans, LQG closure, and intra-organizational transfers, for example. Some of the added burden associated with the new flexibilities for SQGs and VSQGs (intra-organizational transfers and episodic generation) is likely overstated, because EPA expects them to be cost and burden savings measures as a whole. The methodology used was initially developed to estimate the number of SQGs for the “Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule." To derive an estimate of the number of SQGs, EPA relied on information in the 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 BR and RCRAInfo databases. Specifically, EPA used the WR form in the BR database to identify all facilities that shipped hazardous waste off-site and compared this list against the Site ID form in RCRAInfo to identify active SQGs. This analysis was conducted to exclude inactive SQGs in the RCRAInfo database. SQGs that sent multiple hazardous waste shipments to a single TSDF, or more than one TSDF, were only counted once. Furthermore, as part of EPA’s data collection effort, several states provided information on the number of SQGs statewide. These states include Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Therefore, where state-level data were provided, EPA relied on this information rather than estimates derived from the BR and RCRAInfo databases. Third, the number of generators exporting and importing hazardous waste increased between 2016 and 2018 as a result of the Export-Import rule that became effective in D of 2010 – too late to impact the 2010 ICR. Between 2011 and 2014, the number of generators either importing or exporting hazardous waste increased from 1,293 to 3,256 for an increase of 152 percent. As noted, this ICR incorporates new regulations from two recently promulgated rules: The Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements rule of 2016 (OMB Control No. 2050-0213) and the Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions rule of 2016 (OMB Control No. 2050-0214). The hours and costs incorporated from the rule ICRs into this ICRs is less than the total hours and cost reported in those ICRs because the notification and biennial reporting requirements associated with those rules were incorporates into a separate ICR (OMB Control No. 2050-0024).

$855,027
No
    No
    No
No
No
No
Uncollected
Peggy Vyas 703 308-5477 [email protected]

  No

On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    (i) Why the information is being collected;
    (ii) Use of information;
    (iii) Burden estimate;
    (iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);
    (v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
    (vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;
 
 
 
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.
10/31/2018


© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy