RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Renewal of Information Collection Request for
Continuous Release Reporting Requirement
RQ102-CR2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
July 2001
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION I
SECTION 1. DISAGREEMENT WITH ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REPORTS AND
COST 2
SECTION 2. IMPACT OF RECENT EPA INTERIM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 2
SECTION 3. INTERIM GUIDANCE ON CERCLA SECTION 101(10)(H) FEDERALLY
PERMITTED RELEASE DEFINITION 3
SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD 4
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
-------
Response to Comments
Paee 1
INTRODUCTION
This document contains EPA's responses to the public comments submitted by various interested
parties on the Renewal of Information Collection Request for the Continuous Release Reporting
Requirements [102RQ-CR2].
EPA appreciates the public's participation in this collection process. Pursuant to section
3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA 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 ofthe 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 has not considered, the potential impact of the
various options (including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that
the commenters would like EPA to consider during the development of the final action. EPA
provided suggestions for helping commenters prepare their comments on the ICR.
In preparing this response to comment document, EPA reviewed all eight comments submitted by
the public on the Renewal of Information Collection Request for the Continuous Release
Reporting Requirements, identified the issues raised by the comments, summarized commenters'
statements relevant to each issue, and developed responses for each issue. The major issues into
which the comments have been categorized are:
~ 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 1999 EPA Interim Guidance document on
federally permitted releases for air emissions;
~ Issues raised in response to the EPA's Interim (and Final) Guidance on CERCLA Section
101(10)(H) Federally Permitted Release Definition for Certain Air Emissions (Docket
Number EC-G-1999-029); and
~ Requests to extend the public comment period for the Renewal of Information Collection
request for the Continuous Release Reporting Requirements document.
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
-------
Response to Comments
Paee 2
SECTION 1. DISAGREEMENT WITH ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REPORTS
AND COST
Summary of Comm erits:
Three organizations disagreed with EPA's calculations regarding the number of reports needed to
comply with the regulation and the costs associated with submitting these reports.
~ One commenter stated that its organization "strongly disagrees with both the number of
reports and the anticipated costs of this reporting requirement." This commenter also stated
that "EPA must use numbers that reflect an accurate assessment of the total burden associated
with continuous release reporting and must include in that assessment the enormous costs
that will be incurred . . . Another commenter similarly stated that "EPA should use
numbers that reflect an accurate assessment of the total burden associated with such
reporting," and also stated that EPA's estimates are "questionable."
~ One commenter stated that "issuance of EPA guidance in a form similar to that issued on
December 21, 1999 will impose significant additional costs of additional reporting or of
increased reliance on other reporting exemptions . . .The commenter also stated that "the
agency must take into account the costs and burdens of such guidance . . .
EPA's Response to Comm ents:
Number and Cost of Reports. EPA uses historical data when estimating the number of releases
that will be reported to the NRC during the next collection period (200 1-2004). Historical data
gathered annually is the most reliable basis the Agency has for making estimates and has been
used in every renewal estimation (for the Continuous Release Reporting Requirement) without
adverse public comment. One of the objectives of the information collection request renewal
process is to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on EPA's estimates and the
methodology used to determine these numbers. Although EPA received comments questioning
the estimates, the Agency did not receive any comments that included supporting data or
information sufficient to justify altering its historical approach to estimating.
Accuracy of Assessment. EPA relied on the above-mentioned method of using historical
reporting data to derive the numbers used to estimate the total burden associated with reporting.
EPA assumes full compliance during the past years' reporting of these costs. As discussed above,
this historical method is the most reliable basis for such estimates.
SECTION 2. IMPACT OF RECENT EPA INTERIM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Summary of Comments:
Three commenters stated that EPA had failed to take into consideration the impact of the Interim
Guidance on Federally Permitted Releases ("Interim Guidance").1 All three commenters stated
that the Interim Guidance increases the burden of reporting and must be taken into account
when considering the ICR renewal.
1 "Interim Guidance on the CERCLA Section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted Release Definition for
Certain Air Emissions," (64 FR 71614, December 21, 1999).
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
-------
Response to Comments
Paee 3
~ One commenter stated "we believe that the actual burden associated with such reporting in
this ICR must accurately reflect the expanded interpretation of reportable releases reflected in
EPA's Interim Guidance . . .."
~ A commenter made a similar statement; "the agency must take into account the costs and
burdens of such guidance . .
~ One commenter stated "[t]his estimate, however, fails to take into account a recent EPA
guidance document that would broaden the episodic and continuous release reporting
requirements in ways that would significantly affect our members." The commenter also
asserted that "[t]he burden associated with such reporting in this ICR must reflect the
expanded requirements contained in EPA's Interim Guidance or in any successor guidance
that EPA published on this issue."
EPA's Response to Comm ents:
EPA disagrees that the Interim Guidance represents an expansion of the requirement to report
releases. EPA's purpose in issuing the Interim Guidance was to respond to requests for
clarification of the CE RCLA definition of federally permitted releases as it applies to air
emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Interim Guidance does not impose new reporting
requirements or change the types of releases that must be reported under CERCLA section 103 .
EPA assumes that there was full compliance with reporting requirements in the past when it uses
past data to estimate burden. Since the Interim Guidance merely clarifies, but does not expand
reporting requirements, the effects of the federally permitted release exemption are reflected in
the historical data used to estimate the burden. Any change in the future volume of reporting that
might be attributable to the issuance of the Interim Guidance might be the result of an increase in
compliance due to greater understanding of the scope of the federally permitted release
exemption, butwould not be an increase in the burden due to exp ansion o f the requirement to
report.
SECTION 3. INTERIM GUIDANCE ON CERCLA SECTION 101(10)(H)
FEDERALLY PERMITTED RELEASE DEFINITION
Summary of Comments:
EPA received six comments on the Federal Register notice, Interim Guidance that was published
for public comment on December 21, 1999. Four comment letters addressed the Interim
Guidance (two commenters submitted two letters each). The public comment period for the
Interim Guidance closed on April 20, 2000. EPA appreciates that the commenters submitted
copies of their comments on the December 21, 1999 Federal Register notice for EPA's
consideration in the final action on this Renewal of Information Collection Request.
~ One commenter addressed the Interim Guidance by stating that "the hundreds ofthousands
of new reports ofroutine, federally-authorized releases will overwhelm the entities receiving
them . . . ." The commenter stated that"[t]he new reporting burden is significant for
combustion sources releasing nitrogen oxide ("NO") or nitrogen dioxide ("NOx")." Another
commenter similarly viewed the EPA Interim Guidance as "a major change in EPA policy,
imposing potentially significant new burdens."
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
-------
Response to Comments
Paee 4
~ One commenter was concerned with the "avalanche of additional reporting required by the
Interim Guidance . . . . " The commenter believes that this "additional reporting" would
"overwhelm the emergency response authorities (e.g., NRC, SERCs, LEPCs)."
~ Another commenter questioned whether "EPA has the legal authority to define a 'federally
permitted release.'" This commenter stated that the Interim Guidance was "arbitrary and
capricious."
EPA's R esponse to Co mm ents:
As previously stated, EPA does not believe that the Interim Guidance will increase the reporting
burden for this Renewal of the Information Collection Request for continuous releases. The
Interim Guidance merely clarifies the interpretation that EPA maintained for the federally
permitted release exemption for certain air emissions. 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 under EPA Docket Number EC-G-1999-029 upon
publication o f the Final Guidance.
The comments stating that there is a "new reporting burden" or "significant new burdens" have
been considered and EPA expects to issue a revised guidance that will clarify its position on this
issue. To address the commenters' concerns forNO andN02 releases, EPA intends to consider
an administrative reporting exemption for NO and N02 releases. EPA is using its enforcement
discretion to exempt sources from having to reporttheirNOx emissions pending its decision
whether an administrative reporting exemption is warranted.
EPA does not agree that the Interim Guidance will result in an "avalanche of additional
reporting." Whether routine or not, facility owners that release an amount of hazardous substance
that equals or exceeds the reportable quantity have always been required to report the release.
EPA expects thatmany routine releases will qualify for reporting as continuous releases. EPA
also analyzed possible areas of overlap with other regulations. The Agency has concluded that
there are limited areas of overlap with reporting requirements under other statutes and provisions.
Statutory requirements under CERCLA have not changed the federal response authorities, as well
as the State and local response authorities, must be notified immediately of hazardous substance
releases that may pose a threat to public health or welfare or the environment. For this reason,
EPA does not expect "additional reporting" to result from the Interim Guidance.
As stated above, the Interim Guidance merely clarifie s EPA's interpretation of the federally
permitted release exemption for certain air releases. EPA's "legal authority" to issue the Interim
Guidance is defined in a separate response to comment document, EC-G-1999-029.
SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD
Summary of Comments:
One commenter requested that EPA grant an extension ofthe public comment period for the
Proposed Renewal of Information Collection Request. The commenter commended EPA for
"recognizing that the renewal of a collection of information of this sort is subject to opportunity
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
-------
Response to Comments
Paee 5
for public comment" and asserted that EPA should "wholly re-start the 60-day comment period."
Furthermore, the commenter stated that "making the draft ICR and supporting/justification
documents available to the public for comment at this stage of the ICR renewal process is in fact
EPA policy."
EPA's Response to Comments:
EPA agrees with the commenter, and therefore extended the public comment period for the
renewal collection. The Agency also agrees that the public must be able to review the draft
Information Collection Request and supporting documents. Therefore, EPA made the draft
Information Collection Request and associated supporting and justification documents available
for public comment in the docket (RQ102-CR2) and on the internet at:
http://www. epa gov/ superfund/resources/rq/icr.htm.
RQ102-CR2**July 10, 2001
------- |