Response to Comments
Renewal of Information Collection Request for
Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous
Substances
RQ102-ER2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION I: NUMBER OF REPORTS AND ANTICPATED COST 2
SECTION II: IMPACT OF RECENT INTERIM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 3
SECTION III: INTERIM (and FINAL) GUIDANCE ON CERCLA SECTION 101(10)(H)
FEDERALLY PERMITTED RELEASE DEFINITION FOR CERTAIN AIR
EMISSIONS 3
SECTION IV: MISCELLANEOUS 5
-------
Respon se to Com ments
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
This document contains EPA's responses to public comments submitted on the Renewal of
Information Collection Request for Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous
Substances.
EPA appreciates the public's participation in this process. Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(a) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA specifically solicited comments and information to
enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of EPA, including whether the information
will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of EPA's estimates of the burdens of the proposed
collections of information.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic
collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
In the solicitation for comments EPA invited commenters to provide their views on the various
options EPA proposed, new approaches EPA hasn't considered, the potential impacts of the
various options (including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that
they would like EPA to consider during the development of the final action. There were
suggestions provided for helping to prepare the comments.
In preparing this response to comment document, EPA reviewed each of the five public
comments on the renewal of the Information Collection Request, identified the issues raised by
these comments, summarized commenter statements relevant to each issue, and developed
responses for each issue. The major issues into which the comments have been categorized
include:
~ Disagreement with EPA's estimate of the number of reports required and anticipated cost
of this reporting requirement;
~ Failure to take into account the impact of a recent EPA Interim Guidance document; and
~ Issues raised in response to EPA's Interim (and Final) Guidance on CERCLA Section
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
-------
Respon se to Com ments
Page 2
101(10)(H) Federally Permitted Release Definition for Certain Air Emissions (Docket
Number EC-G-1999-029).
SECTION I: NUMBER OF REPORTS AND ANTICIPATED COST
Summary of Comments:
EPA received comments from two organizations indicating disagreement with EPA's estimates
of the number of reports needed to comply with the regulation and with the cost of making the
reports. Both organizations submitted their comments twice. First in response to the June 13,
2000 (65 FR 37128) notice that was withdrawn on August 22, 2000 (65 FR 50985) and then
again in response to the December 5, 2000 (65 FR 75930) notice.
~ Comments 102RQ-ER2-2-1 (2-1) (August 14, 2000) and 102RQ-ER2-2-5 (2-5)(February
5, 2000) are from the same organization. This commenter states that they, "strongly
disagree with both the number of reports and the anticipated cost of this reporting
requirement." (2-1) The commenter also states that they, "strongly opposed the
statements made by EPA in that notice [June 13, 2000, 65 FR 37218], whereby the
Agency claimed that it did not expect the current burden and cost of reporting episodic
releases to change." (2-5) The commenter supported both statements with estimates that
the number of episodic release reports required would increase to over one million reports
annually and the cost would increase to over $100 million for its industry alone.
~ Comments 102RQ-ER2-2-2 (2-2) (August 14, 2000) and 102RQ-ER2-2-4 (2-4)
(December 14, 2000) are also from the same organization. This commenter states that,
"EPA should use numbers that reflect an accurate assessment of the total burden
associated with such reporting." (2-2 and 2-4)
EPA's Response to Comments:
Number and Cost of Reports. EPA uses historical reporting data to estimate the number of
releases that will be reported to the NRC during the next collection period (2000 - 2003).
Because releases are not predictable and because EPA assumes Ml compliance during past
years' reporting, historical data is the most reliable basis the Agency has for making estimates.
EPA has used this methodology in every renewal estimation (for Notification of Episodic
Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances) without adverse public comment. A purpose of the
Information Collection Request renewal process is to give the public a chance to comment on
EPA's methods for estimating. EPA did not receive any comments with supporting data or
information sufficient to justify altering its historical approach to estimating.
Accuracy of Assessment. The numbers used to estimate the total burden associated with
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
-------
Respon se to Com ments
Page 3
reporting reflect reliance on historical reporting, as discussed above.
SECTION II: IMPACT OF RECENT INTERIM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Summary of Comments:
Five commenters said that EPA failed to take into account the impact of the recent Interim
Guidance on Federally Permitted Releases ("Interim Guidance").1 All three organizations (two
organizations commented twice) made statements that the Interim Guidance increases the burden
of reporting episodic releases because it is an expansion of the requirement to report releases
under CERCLA. The organizations believe that burden associated with the Interim Guidance
must be included in the burden analysis for this Information Collection Request.
EPA's Response to Comments:
EPA disagrees that the Interim Guidance represents an expansion of the requirement to report
releases under CERCLA. EPA's purpose in issuing the Interim Guidance was to respond to
requests for clarification of the CERCLA definition of federally permitted releases as it applies to
releases under the CAA. The Interim Guidance does not impose new reporting requirements or
change the types of releases which must be reported under CERCLA section 103. EPA assumes
full compliance with reporting requirements when it estimates burden; and the effects of the
federally permitted release exemption are reflected in the historical data used to estimate the
burden. To the extent there might be an increase in reporting above that reflected in the Agency's
estimate, the increase might reflect, among other things, an increase in compliance due to greater
understanding of the scope of the federally permitted release exemption, rather than an increase
in burden due to expansion of the requirement to report.
SECTION III: INTERIM (and FINAL) GUIDANCE ON CERCLA SECTION 101(10)(H)
FEDERALLY PERMITTED RELEASE DEFINITION FOR CERTAIN AIR EMISSIONS
On January 17, 2001 the Final Guidance on CERCLA section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted
Release Definition for Certain Air Emissions was signed and sent to the Federal Register where it
was available for public viewing for about one day. The document was also available to some
members of the trade press. The document was withdrawn from publication in the Federal
Register pending review by the new administration. Therefore, some comments were in response
to that Final Guidance.
Summary of Comments:
'"Interim Guidance on the CERCLA Section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted Release
Definition for Certain Air Emissions," (64 FR 71614, December 21, 1999).
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
-------
Respon se to Com ments
Page 4
EPA received five comments on the Federal Register notice providing, "Interim Guidance on
CERCLA section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted Release Definition for Certain Air Emissions
('Interim Guidance')," that was published for public comment on December 21, 1999 (64 FR
71614). The public comment period for the Interim Guidance closed on April 20, 2000. EPA
appreciates that the commenters thought to provide copies of their response to that notice for
EPA's consideration in the final action on this Information Collection Request renewal.
~ Commenter (2-5) responded to the Agency's position on NO and NOx and exempt minor
sources in the Final Guidance document. The Final Guidance addressed the scenario that
NO and NOx controls can form the basis for an exemption where they exist. NO and
NOx were not specifically addressed in the Interim Guidance. Also, the Agency's
position on exempt minor sources was "softened"2 in the Final Guidance. The
commenter states that the, "changes may reduce [the commenter's] initial reporting
estimates, thereby directly affecting the burden estimates within the Information
Collection Request
~ The response of commenter 102RQ-ER2-2-3 (2-3) addressed the Information Collection
renewal byway of comment on the "current status of the federally-permitted release
exemption from reporting requirements under Section 103(a) of CERCLA." The
comments did not address the renewal beyond expressing concern that the Interim
Guidance would, "impose significant costs of additional reporting or of increased reliance
on other reporting exemptions, such as the continuous release exemption." The
commenter concludes that EPA, "must take into account the costs and burdens of such
guidance in its Paperwork Reduction Act review of CERCLA release reporting ...."
Other specific comments made in response to the Interim Guidance impact on burden that
were repeated for this renewal included:
1) "The Interim Guidance imposes tremendous new burdens on industry throughout
the country - particularly small manufacturers - who would be required [to] notify
and report releases."
2) "The avalanche of additional reporting required by the Interim Guidance would
overwhelm the emergency response authorities (e.g., NRC, SERCs, LEPCs)."
3) "The undue burdens associated with reporting for nitrogen oxides would be
particularly significant."
4) "Much of the contemplated reporting would be duplicative and unnecessary."
2Commenter (2-5) language.
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
-------
Respon se to Com ments
Page 5
EPA's Response to Comments:
As stated above, EPA does not believe that the Interim Guidance results in an increase in
reporting burden for this Information Collection Request. The Interim Guidance merely clarifies
the interpretation that EPA maintained for the federally permitted release exemption for certain
air releases. The comments on the Interim Guidance are addressed in a separate response to
comment document The response to comment document for the Final Guidance will be available
in EPA Docket Number EC-G-1999-029 upon publication of the Final Guidance.
The Agency considered comments submitted in response to the Interim Guidance related to
burden and expects to issue a revised guidance that will clarify the Agency position. With
respect to specific concerns for nitrogen oxide releases, EPA considers that a NOx limit applies
to NO and N02 releases.
EPA does not agree that the Interim Guidance imposes "tremendous new burdens on industry...
required to notify and report routine releases." Releases that meet or exceed the reportable
quantity have always been reportable whether routine or not. The Agency considers that routine
releases for the most part will qualify for reporting as continuous releases and has considered the
burden associated with continuous releases in a separate Information Collection Request. For
these reasons the Agency does not expect an "avalanche of additional reporting..." of episodic
releases.
EPA does not believe that the episodic reporting requirements are "duplicative and unnecessary."
The information required to be provided in the telephone call to the NRC is the minimum
information necessary to evaluate hazardous substance release or discharge of oil. EPA analyzed
possible areas of overlap with other regulations, and concluded that there are limited areas of
overlap with reporting requirements under other statutes and provisions. The statutory
requirements under CERCLA are clear and distinct; the Federal response system, as well as the
State and local response systems must be alerted immediately to potentially dangerous releases of
hazardous substances that may pose a threat to public health or welfare or the environment.
SECTION IV: MISCELLANEOUS
Summary of Comments:
One commenter (2-4) noted that the numbers in the Federal Register notice do not agree with the
numbers that were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in the ICR Renewal
Request dated August 1, 2000.
EPA's Response to Comments:
The commenter is correct. Unfortunately the numbers from the prior Information Collection
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
-------
Respon se to Com ments Page 6
Request (#1049.08) were published in the Federal Register in error. The numbers presented in
the ICR Renewal Request dated August 1, 2000 are correct and also agree with the draft OMB-
83-1 Form. The correct numbers are: 23,726 reports; 97,277 industry burden hours; and
anticipated 0& M cost of SO.
***DRAFT***RQ102-ER2***F ebruary 15, 2001***
------- |