Assessment of the Potential Costs, 

Benefits, and Other Impacts of the 

Improvements to the Hazardous 

Waste Generator Regulatory 

Program, As Proposed

May 2015

prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff

prepared by:

Industrial Economics, Incorporated

2067 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02140

617/354-0074
i

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Overview 1-1

Background and Need for Regulatory Action 1-1

Summary of the Proposed Rule 1-2

Report Organization 1-7

CHAPTER 2 | POTENTIALLY IMPACTED UNIVERSE

Introduction 2-1

Universe of Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule 2-1

Estimating the Number of LQGs 2-2

Estimating the Number of SQGs 2-3

Estimating the Number of CESQGs 2-4

Hazardous Waste Generation of Potentially Affected Facilities 2-10

LQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2-11

SQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2-20

CESQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2-22

Aggregate Generation of Hazardous Waste Among Facilities Potentially Affected by the Rule 2-23

Management of Hazardous Waste 2-24

CHAPTER 3 | ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

Introduction 3-1

Estimating Costs as a Range 3-1

Cost Methodology 3-3

General Assumptions 3-3

Methods for Assessing Costs of Rule Provisions 3-6

Results 3-48

Analytic Limitations 3-56

CHAPTER 4 | ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS

Introduction 4-1

Monetized Benefits 4-1

Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements for SQGs 4-2

Intra-organizational Transfers of Hazardous Waste from CESQGs to LQGs 4-5
Header Text

[Footer Text]

ii

Generators that Temporarily Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event 4-13
iii

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Non-Quantified Benefits 4-17

Intra-organization Transfers of Hazardous Waste from CESQGs to LQGs 4-18

 Documentation of Negative or Non-Hazardous Waste Determinations 4-19

 SQG Re-Notification 4-20

 Marking and Labeling of Containers for SQGs and LQGs 4-20

 LQG Closure Conditions 4-21

 Strengthening of the Preparedness, Prevention, and Emergency Response Conditions

 for LQGs 4-21

 Generators that Temporarily Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event 4-22

 Transfer Facility Requirements 4-22

 Biennial Reporting Requirements 4-22

 Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted Waste 4-22

 Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes (Voluntary) 4-23

CHAPTER 5 | SUMMARY OF REGULATORY BENEFITS AND COSTS

CHAPTER 6 | EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS

Regulatory Planning and Review 6-1

Regulatory Flexibility 6-2

Employment Impact Analysis 6-10

Unfunded Mandates Analysis 6-11

Federalism Analysis 6-12

Tribal Governments Analysis 6-13

Energy Impact Analysis 6-14

Environmental Justice Analysis 6-15

Children’s Health Protection Analysis 6-15

Joint Impacts of Rules 6-16
ES-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents EPA’s analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of 

the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. This proposed rule has 

the dual purposes of enhancing protection of human health and the environment and 

improving the efficiency of the hazardous waste generator standards. EPA is publishing 

this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites 

comments from the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and conclusions presented 

herein. The net benefits of the proposed rule are summarized in Exhibit ES-1. Further 

detail on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule is provided in the executive summary 

below.

EXHIBIT ES-1. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

REGULATORY 

REQUIREMENTS

3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

($2012, MILLIONS)

7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

($2012, MILLIONS)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS1 NET BENEFITS

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS1 NET BENEFITS

Mandatory 

Provisions of the 

Proposed Rule

$5.2 - $12.0 $0.035 - $0.035 ($5.2) – ($12.0) $5.5 - $11.9 $0.035 - $0.035 ($5.4) – ($11.9)

Voluntary 

Provisions of the 

Proposed Rule

$0.8 - $5.4 $6.2 - $12.2 $5.4 - $6.7 $0.8 - $5.5 $6.2 - $12.2 $5.4 - $6.7

Mandatory and 

Voluntary

Provisions of the 

Proposed Rule 

Combined

$6.0 - $17.4 $6.2 - $12.2 $0.2 – ($5.2) $6.3 - $17.4 $6.2 - $12.2 ($0.03) – ($5.2)

Notes:

1. Due to limitations in the available data, benefits associated with several provisions of the proposed rule could not be 

monetized. For those provisions that can be monetized, net benefits for these provisions are presented as negative. These 

negative values do not capture all the benefits associated with the proposed rule. In other words, the negative values in 

the exhibits underestimate the true net benefits associated with the rule’s mandatory and voluntary provisions.

Ranges are presented to reflect the low-end and high-end scenarios described later in this report. Numbers in parentheses 

indicate a net cost, as opposed to a net benefit.

Formatted: Not Different first page header

Deleted: N

Deleted: therefore

Deleted: ,

Deleted: however, 

Deleted: reflect

Deleted: that EPA was unable to monetize

Deleted: In excluding

Deleted: these benefits, 
ES-2

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION

Under the statutory authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

EPA originally promulgated the hazardous waste generator regulatory program in 1980. 

Since that time, the basic regulatory framework of the program has remained intact 

except for a limited number of major changes.

Over the course of the last 30 years, the Agency has become aware of ambiguities and 

gaps in the regulations, which, if corrected, could make the program more effective in 

protecting human health and the environment. For example, the current regulations do 

not require small and large quantity generators (SQGs and LQGs) to document situations 

where they generated a solid waste, as defined at 40 CFR 262.11, that is not a hazardous 

waste. However, generators often fail to accurately make a hazardous waste 

determination which can lead to the mismanagement of hazardous waste. In addition, 

current regulations do not require that hazardous waste container labels include 

information on the specific hazards of container contents or what risk these wastes could 

pose to human health and the environment when such waste is being accumulated on-site.

EPA has also become increasingly aware of certain inflexibilities in the generator 

regulations over the last 30 years. For example, some generators, particularly those

located in urban environments, may find it infeasible to meet the requirement that 

containers holding ignitable or reactive waste be placed at least 15 meters (~50 feet) back 

from the facility’s property line. In addition, current regulations require that a 

conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) or SQG that experiences a onetime generation event resulting in the generation of more than 1,000 kilograms of 

hazardous waste in a calendar month comply with the regulatory requirements for LQGs. 

Requiring CESQGs or SQGs that rarely exceed their normal regulatory status to meet the 

full LQG requirements as a result of such episodic events may be burdensome.

To address these shortcomings in the current generator regulations, EPA is proposing 

several specific changes to the hazardous waste generator program. These improvements 

are relatively minor on an individual basis, yet address a wide range of issues. In 

aggregate, the proposed changes to the program are expected to significantly improve 

regulatory efficiency and provide further protection of human health and the

environment.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPO SED RULE

EPA is proposing several changes to the hazardous waste generator regulations. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to (1) revise different components of the hazardous waste 

regulatory program; (2) address gaps in the current regulations; (3) provide greater 

flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a costeffective manner; (4) reorganize the hazardous waste generator regulations to improve 

their usability among regulated facilities; and (5) make technical corrections and 
ES-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete programs, and 

improve the readability of the regulations.

Some provisions of the proposed rule represent substantive changes to the requirements 

with which hazardous waste generators must comply, while others are simply revisions or 

minor corrections unlikely to affect the activities of most individual generators. This EA 

focuses on the former, as these provisions are more likely to result in costs, benefits, 

and/or other economic impacts. These specific provisions are summarized below. While 

the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule are intended 

to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus 

voluntary. For a detailed discussion of all the changes that EPA is proposing to the 

generator regulations, please refer to the Preamble to the proposed rule.

1. Documentation of negative or non-hazardous waste determinations: The 

proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all 

hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste, as 

defined by 40 CFR 261.2, is not a RCRA hazardous waste. Under current 

regulations, generators must document and maintain records when they determine 

that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation 

requirement exists for negative determinations. 

2. SQG re-notification: To ensure that regulatory agencies have information on 

facilities generating hazardous waste, EPA is proposing that SQGs re-notify EPA 

of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year, similar to the 

existing requirement for LQGs. For each re-notification, a facility need only 

review its previous notification and either make changes if necessary or confirm 

that the information remains accurate.

3. Marking and labeling of containers, drip pads, and containment buildings for 

SQGs and LQGs: Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs label 

containers with the words, “Hazardous Waste.” While this wording provides 

some information regarding a container’s contents, it does not indicate the 

specific hazards associated with these contents or the risks that a waste may pose 

to human health and the environment. EPA is therefore proposing that SQGs and 

LQGs mark containers with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words 

that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an 

indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous 

waste characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs 

mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous 

Waste” and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first 

placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the 

waste; and (3) an indication of the associated hazards (e.g., the applicable 

hazardous waste characteristic).

Deleted: two 
ES-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

4. LQG closure conditions: EPA is proposing to strengthen the closure regulations 

for LQGs that accumulate hazardous wastes in containers in satellite 

accumulation areas (SAAs) or central accumulation areas (CAAs). Specifically, 

EPA proposes that if the generator cannot demonstrate that any contaminated 

soils can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the generator must 

close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post-closure care in accordance 

with the closure and post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills 

(§ 265.310). In addition, for the purposes of closure, post-closure, and financial 

responsibility, such a waste accumulation unit is then considered to be a landfill, 

and the generator must meet all of the requirements for landfills specified in 

subparts G and H of part 265. 

Also related to closure, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their 

authorized state within 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such 

generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either 

clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, that they have closed as a landfill. 

5. Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response 

conditions: EPA is proposing to require that all LQGs and SQGs maintain 

records documenting their emergency response arrangements with local 

emergency management authorities. This documentation must include a certified 

letter or any other documentation that confirms such arrangements actively exist. 

In addition, to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an 

emergency, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an executive summary 

of their contingency plans to emergency management authorities. While EPA is 

not proposing to require that existing LQGs develop an executive summary of 

their contingency plan, it is taking comment on expanding this requirement to all 

LQGs.

6. Transfer facility requirements: EPA is proposing to change the marking and 

labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer 

facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all 

hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words 

“Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers 

(e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s

contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 

7. Biennial Reporting Requirements: EPA is proposing two substantive changes to 

the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs. First, the Agency is proposing that 

LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting 

year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Current 

regulation at the Federal level is unclear on this issue, and a limited number of 

states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated 
ES-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

for only those months that they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing that 

LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless 

of whether the waste was transported off-site during the reporting year. Although 

the current EPA Biennial Report (BR) instructions state that generators should 

report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, 

Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a generator generates 

hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off-site during the next 

calendar year.

8. Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste: Consistent with the proposed 

marking and labeling requirements for SQGs and LQGs, EPA is proposing to 

require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be 

marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that identify the 

contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s 

contents.

9. Drip pad and containment building requirements: Under the existing 

regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days 

or less without a permit or interim status to also apply to SQGs. Therefore, SQGs

that use drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the LQG 90-day 

accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit) as well 

as the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development of a 

full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Under the proposed rule, EPA 

believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that 

accumulated hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings to comply

with the 90-day accumulation limit, but to otherwise comply with the less 

stringent requirements for SQGs.

10. Intra-organizational transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs 

(voluntary): To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, EPA is proposing to allow 

CESQGs to voluntarily send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the 

ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG 

comply with certain conditions related to labeling, transportation, notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping.

11. Generators that temporarily change generator status due to an episodic event 

(voluntary): To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate 

much of their hazardous waste on an episodic basis, EPA is proposing to allow a 

CESQG or an SQG to voluntarily maintain its existing regulatory status in the 

event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a 

quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the 

facility to a more stringent regulatory status. To avail itself of this provision, an 
ES-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

SQG or CESQG would be subject to various conditions related to the frequency 

of episodic generation events, notification and recordkeeping related to these 

events, the accumulation of hazardous waste generated during these events, and 

the management of this waste.

12. Special requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes (voluntary): Current 

regulation requires that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive 

waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, 

LQGs may find it impossible to meet this requirement due to the relatively small 

footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA 

is proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility-specific waiver 

from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste 

accumulation property line requirement.

POTENTIALLY IMPACTED UNIVERSE

The proposed rule may affect a wide range of facility types across a number of industries. 

For an individual facility, the cost impact of the proposed rule will depend, in part, on its

generator status under RCRA (i.e., LQG, SQG, or CESQGs). Therefore, to assess the 

rule’s cost impacts, this EA estimates the distribution of potentially affected facilities 

across generator status categories. Based on data from EPA’s BR database, the Agency’s 

RCRAInfo database, and a limited number of states, Exhibit ES-2 describes the total 

number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs by state. As indicated in the exhibit, EPA 

estimates that between 353,000 and 543,000 hazardous waste generators are in operation 

in the U.S. and its territories, more than 80 percent of which are CESQGs.

For the facilities represented in Exhibit ES-2, the impacts of the rule will depend, in part, 

on the amount of hazardous waste that they generate on an annual basis. Based on data 

from the 2011 BR database and select states, Exhibit ES-3 presents the average 

generation of hazardous waste on a per-facility level for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. For 

both the tonnage of hazardous waste generated and number of waste streams generated, 

the exhibit presents both the median and mean values from the available data. In 

addition, due to the limited data available on SQG and CESQG waste generation and the 

variability of generation quantities within these categories, the exhibit also presents the 

interquartile range for SQG and CESQG hazardous waste generation.
ES-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-2: UNIVERSE OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE BY STATE AND GENERATOR 

STATUS

STATE

[A]

NUMBER 

OF LQGs

[B]

NUMBER OF SQGs NUMBER OF CESQGs

TOTAL NUMBER OF 

GENERATORS

LOW-END

[C]

HIGH-END

[D]

LOW-END

[E]

HIGH-END

[F]

LOW-END

[G]

HIGH-END

[H]

Alabama 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 3,390 4,839 4,839

Alaska 27 96 143 617 941 740 1,111

Arizona 210 511 770 1,774 1,774 2,495 2,754

Arkansas 123 256 318 1,646 3,650 2,025 4,091

California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 21,000 28,138 28,138

Colorado 107 434 482 2,791 3,175 3,332 3,764

Connecticut 278 756 1,092 4,862 8,249 5,896 9,619

Delaware 49 155 218 997 1,454 1,201 1,721

District of Columbia 23 36 74 232 682 291 779

Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 19,350 23,429 23,429

Georgia 334 900 1,288 5,788 9,911 7,022 11,533

Guam 8 3 8 19 237 30 253

Hawaii 31 122 165 692 692 845 888

Idaho 19 79 89 508 586 606 694

Illinois 641 2,958 4,897 19,021 32,226 22,620 37,764

Indiana 503 790 1,156 5,080 14,926 6,373 16,585

Iowa 128 471 675 3,029 4,442 3,628 5,245

Kansas 170 480 680 3,087 5,045 3,737 5,895

Kentucky 269 355 469 2,283 7,982 2,907 8,720

Louisiana 331 705 1,068 4,534 9,822 5,570 11,221

Maine 52 304 304 949 949 1,305 1,305

Maryland 132 974 1,780 3,917 11,714 5,023 13,626

Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 12,559 15,644 15,644

Michigan 342 1,486 2,194 9,556 14,438 11,384 16,974

Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 21,743 23,429 23,429

Mississippi 128 210 286 1,350 3,798 1,688 4,212

Missouri 282 1,279 1,727 8,225 11,365 9,786 13,374

Montana 41 55 77 354 1,217 450 1,335

Navajo Nation 1 6 6 30 39 37 46

Nebraska 64 226 273 1,453 1,899 1,743 2,236

Nevada 68 196 280 3,187 3,187 3,451 3,535

New Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 1,818 2,119 2,119
ES-8

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-2: UNIVERSE OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE BY STATE AND GENERATOR 

STATUS

STATE

[A]

NUMBER 

OF LQGs

[B]

NUMBER OF SQGs NUMBER OF CESQGs

TOTAL NUMBER OF 

GENERATORS

LOW-END

[C]

HIGH-END

[D]

LOW-END

[E]

HIGH-END

[F]

LOW-END

[G]

HIGH-END

[H]

New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 9,000 10,425 10,425

New Mexico 39 156 236 1,003 1,553 1,198 1,828

New York 1,471 1,983 3,255 12,752 43,650 16,206 48,376

North Carolina 437 1,169 1,786 7,518 12,967 9,124 15,190

North Dakota 19 62 78 399 564 480 661

Ohio 716 2,041 3,240 13,125 21,322 15,882 25,278

Oklahoma 179 379 502 2,437 5,312 2,995 5,993

Oregon 181 235 285 1,511 5,371 1,927 5,837

Pennsylvania 671 2,721 4,293 17,498 28,251 20,890 33,215

Puerto Rico 80 96 115 617 2,374 793 2,569

Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 2,100 2,865 2,865

South Carolina 257 485 722 3,119 7,626 3,861 8,605

South Dakota 33 182 256 979 1,685 1,194 1,974

Tennessee 334 442 710 2,842 9,911 3,618 10,955

Texas 1,006 1,471 2,164 9,460 29,852 11,937 33,022

Trust Territories 1 3 5 19 33 23 39

Utah 111 174 205 1,119 3,294 1,404 3,610

Vermont 39 185 250 1,157 1,645 1,381 1,934

Virgin Islands 2 6 5 33 59 41 66

Virginia 219 1,274 2,029 6,499 13,352 7,992 15,600

Washington 412 532 604 22,315 22,315 23,259 23,331

West Virginia 98 280 376 1,801 2,908 2,179 3,382

Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 9,323 10,944 10,944

Wyoming 15 75 99 445 651 535 765

TOTAL 14,262 45,762 59,702 292,912 469,378 352,936 543,342

EXHIBIT ES-3: PER FACILITY GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, BY FACILITY 

TYPE 

GENERATOR TYPE

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED 

PER FACILITY (TONS)

AVERAGE NUMBER OF WASTE 

STREAMS PER FACILITY

LQG Median: 21.4 

Mean: 2,421

Median: 5 

Mean: 17

SQG Median: 1.5

Mean: 2.6

Median: 4

Mean: 8
ES-9

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CESQG Median: 0.20 

Mean: 0.31

Median: 2

Mean: 4

Sources: 

LQG estimates derived from the 2011 Biennial Report (BR) database. SQG estimates reflect 

data from the States of Maine and Washington, as well as the limited SQG-specific data 

included in the 2011 BR database. CESQG estimates are based on data from Maine, New 

Jersey, and Washington, as well as data from the 2011 BR database.

Exhibit ES-4 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially 

affected by the proposed rulemaking. In total, this EA estimates that between 

approximately 353,000 and 543,000 facilities may be affected by the proposed rule. Due 

to uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation of SQGs and CESQGs, this EA

bounds these generation quantities using the median and mean values reported above.1 

Using this approach, facilities in the affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 

34.65 and 34.82 million tons of hazardous waste per year. While there is uncertainty 

about the actual number of SQG and CESQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste 

generation, the vast majority of hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated 

by LQGs. Therefore, in terms of volume, the difference between the low-end and highend scenarios contemplated in this EA is approximately 167,000 tons of hazardous waste 

or less than 1 percent of all hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected 

universe.

 

1 For LQGs, Exhibit ES-4 uses the mean generation per facility so that the total across all LQGs matches the total in the 2011 

BR database.
ES-10

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-4: AGGREGATE ANNUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY GENERATOR STATUS (TONS)

SCENARIO

[A]

LQGs SQGs1 CESQGs2 TOTAL

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[B]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)

[C]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[D]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)1

[E]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[F]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)2

[G]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[H]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)

[I]

Low-end 

Estimate

14,262 34,522,000

45,762 70,000 292,912 59,000 352,936 34,651,000

High-end 

Estimate 59,702 152,000 469,378 144,000 543,342 34,818,000

Notes:

1. For SQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.54 tons/year of hazardous 

waste (the median). The high-end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.60 tons/year of 

hazardous waste (the mean).

2. For CESQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.20 tons/year of hazardous 

waste (the median). The high-end estimate assumes that CESQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.31 tons/year of

hazardous waste.
ES-11

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

To assess the costs of the proposed rule, this EA estimates the unit costs (e.g., disposal 

cost per ton of waste) associated with each provision of the rule and applies these values 

to the number of facilities affected by each rule provision. To address uncertainties 

regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the amount of hazardous 

waste that they generate, and several of the cost-related inputs used in the analysis, this 

EA presents both low-end and high-end estimates of the costs associated with the 

proposed rule. The low-end cost estimates reflect low-end estimates of (1) the number of 

facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per facility, and (3) 

the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated facilities. The low-end 

estimates also reflect the low-end assumptions regarding any cost-related inputs for 

which a range of data inputs were available. Similarly, the high-end cost estimates 

developed in this EA reflect the high-end estimates for these variables. 

Exhibit ES-5 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by provision for both 

the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule. These costs are reported on an 

undiscounted basis as well as under discount rates of both 3 and 7 percent. As the exhibit 

shows, the most significant costs under the mandatory provisions of the proposed rule are 

associated with the marking/labeling requirements. Among the voluntary provisions, 

estimated costs are highest for the proposed intra-organizational transfer provision. 

Exhibit ES-6 presents the distribution of the total costs of the rule across the three RCRA 

generator categories (i.e., LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs) for the mandatory and voluntary 

provisions combined. As the exhibit shows, the aggregate costs of the rule are higher for 

SQGs and CESQGs, which significantly outnumber LQGs in the potentially affected 

universe. However, on a per facility basis, the costs of the proposed rule are highest for 

LQGs. Specifically, on a per-facility basis, the average annualized incremental costs of 

the rule (for mandatory and voluntary provisions combined) are between $1 and $13 for 

CESQGs, between $80 and $170 for SQGs, and between $162 and $401 for LQGs (using

a 7 percent discount rate).2 While all generators are subject to the proposed rule, only a 

subset would incur costs depending on each provision of the rule. Therefore, the average 

costs reported may not be reflective of the actual costs that an individual facility may 

experience. 

 

2 These values reflect the average across all facilities in the regulated universe, not just those that incur costs under 

individual provisions of the rule. For example, the cost range for LQGs reflects the costs of LQG closure divided by the total 

number of LQGs in the universe, even though only a limited number of LQGs close on an annual basis.

Deleted: Between 

Deleted: two 

Deleted: higher 
ES-12

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-5. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION ($2012)

REQUIREMENT

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $374,000 $386,000 $403,000 $1,100,000 $1,130,000 $1,180,000

Re-notification $737,000 $748,000 $762,000 $946,000 $960,000 $978,000

Labeling $3,020,000 $3,160,000 $3,370,000 $6,120,000 $6,270,000 $6,480,000

Closure $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 $1,840,000 $1,340,000 $988,000

Emergency Response Preparedness $414,000 $416,000 $420,000 $804,000 $807,000 $811,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $549,000 $549,000 $549,000

BR Requirements $290,000 $294,000 $299,000 $918,000 $931,000 $949,000

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,050,000 $5,220,000 $5,480,000 $12,300,000 $12,000,000 $11,900,000

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $547,000 $562,000 $584,000 $4,250,000 $4,280,000 $4,320,000

Episodic Generation $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 $50 $50 $82,900 $88,000 $95,700

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $755,000 $771,000 $793,000 $5,400,000 $5,440,000 $5,490,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $5,810,000 $5,990,000 $6,270,000 $17,700,000 $17,400,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
ES-13

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-6. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY GENERATOR STATUS (MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY 

PROVISIONS COMBINED, $2012)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

LQG 14,262 $1,470,000 $1,620,000 $1,840,000 14,262 $4,920,000 $4,590,000 $4,490,000

SQG 45,762 $3,580,000 $3,600,000 $3,630,000 59,702 $7,350,000 $7,390,000 $7,440,000

CESQG 292,912 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 469,378 $9,760 $9,800 $9,860

SUB-TOTAL 352,936 $5,050,000 $5,220,000 $5,480,000 543,342 $12,300,000 $12,000,000 $11,900,000

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

LQG 14,262 $431,000 $446,000 $468,000 14,262 $1,150,000 $1,180,000 $1,230,000

SQG 45,762 $27,300 $27,300 $27,300 59,702 $322,000 $322,000 $322,000

CESQG 292,912 $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 469,378 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 $3,930,000

SUB-TOTAL 352,936 $755,000 $771,000 $793,000 543,342 $5,400,000 $5,440,000 $5,490,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

LQG 14,262 $1,900,000 $2,070,000 $2,310,000 14,262 $6,070,000 $5,770,000 $5,720,000

SQG 45,762 $3,610,000 $3,630,000 $3,650,000 59,702 $7,670,000 $7,710,000 $7,760,000

CESQG 292,912 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 469,378 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000

TOTAL 352,936 $5,810,000 $5,990,000 $6,270,000 543,342 $17,700,000 $17,400,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
ES-14

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS

The proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule may yield a variety of 

benefits as generators change several of their waste management practices to comply with 

the proposed rule requirements. These benefits reflect the rule’s focus on enhancing 

protection of human health and the environment and improving the efficiency of the 

RCRA hazardous waste generator standards. Ideally, this EA would quantify and 

monetize each of the rule’s benefits. However, only some categories of benefits are 

quantifiable. For the majority of benefits, sufficient data are not available to support a 

detailed quantitative analysis. For example, quantifying benefits associated with 

improved emergency response due to more detailed container labeling would require data 

on the annual number of emergencies at generator sites, the current risks associated with 

these incidents, the extent to which more detailed labeling would affect the procedures of 

emergency responders, and the reduction in risk associated with these changes. Detailed 

data on these items are not readily available.

For those benefit categories for which detailed data are available, this EA quantifies and 

monetizes benefits. In instances where quantitative data are not available, this EA 

provides a qualitative characterization of benefits.

MONETIZED BENEFITS

The available data support the monetization of one mandatory provision (drip pad and 

containment building requirements for SQGs) and two voluntary provisions of the 

proposed rule (the intra-organizational consolidation of CESQG waste at an LQG and the 

flexibility afforded SQGs and CESQGs that cross the threshold to a more stringent

regulatory status due to episodic generation events). The benefits associated with each of 

these provisions are as follows:

Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements for SQGs: The additional flexibility 

afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings 

for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status to comply with the LQG 90-day 

accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit), but to otherwise 

comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs, would result in a cost savings 

associated with no longer being subject to the LQG requirements for personnel training, 

emergency response preparedness, and biennial reporting.

Intra-organizational Transfers: Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an 

LQG under the ownership of the same organization may result in a net cost savings from 

reduced management costs related to both disposal and transportation. With respect to 

disposal, organizations would realize a cost-savings associated with managing waste 

quantities in bulk. Specifically, industry sources estimate that stand-alone CESQG 

facilities incur an average cost premium of approximately 10 percent to dispose of their 
ES-15

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

hazardous waste relative to LQGs.3 Organizations consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs 

may also reduce the costs they incur shipping hazardous waste to treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs) due to the higher transport costs typically incurred by 

CESQGs on a per-ton basis compared to LQGs.4 

This provision of the proposed rule would also lead to cost savings for the limited number 

of organizations that transfer hazardous waste from CESQGs that they own and/or 

operate to LQGs within the organization. Under the proposed rule, LQGs owned by these 

organizations would no longer need to obtain a RCRA storage permit or financial 

assurance (assuming that they do not receive hazardous waste from SQGs, other LQGs, 

or CESQG facilities owned by other organizations) and would avoid the costs associated 

with these items.

Episodic Generation: As noted above, EPA would allow a CESQG or SQG to retain its 

existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event that 

would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent status. This provision would 

result in a cost savings for CESQGs and SQGs that avoid the cost increase associated 

with such a change in generator status. These costs are related to the RCRA generator 

requirements for training, inspections, manifests, contingency plan updating, and biennial 

reporting. 

Exhibit ES-7 reports the estimated monetized benefits of the proposed rule for one of the 

mandatory provisions of the rule and two of the voluntary provisions of the rule. Due to 

limitations in the available data, benefits associated with several mandatory provisions 

and one voluntary provision of the rule could not be monetized. As indicated in the 

exhibit, the estimated benefits of the other voluntary provisions range from $6.2 to $12.2

million per year. Of the provisions for which benefits are monetized, benefits are greatest

for the episodic generation provision of the rule. Approximately two-thirds of the

avoided costs associated with this provision reflect personnel training that generators 

would no longer need to provide their staff as a result of the rule. The benefits realized 

by individual facilities under this provision, however, would vary depending on their 

baseline generator status and the specific change in generator status they would avoid 

under the rule. 

 

3 The 10 percent cost premium represents the average of a range of estimates from 5 to 15 percent, based on personal 

communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 29, 2013. This cost premium is incurred across all management 

methods. 

4 This excludes the costs of transporting CESQG waste to an LQG, which are included in the cost analysis. 

Deleted: each 

Deleted: the 

Deleted: All benefits monetized in Exhibit ES-7 are for voluntary 

provisions of the rule.
ES-16

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-7. SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

REQUIREMENT

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFIT

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED BENEFIT

(USING A 3% DISCOUNT

RATE)

ANNUALIZED BENEFIT

(USING A 7% DISCOUNT

RATE)

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

Drip Pads and 

Containment Buildings

(Mandatory)

$34,700 $34,800 $34,800

Intra-organizational 

Transfers (Voluntary) $2,440,000 $2,450,000 $2,450,000

Episodic Generation

(Voluntary) $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $3,760,000

TOTAL $6,230,000 $6,230,000 $6,240,000

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

Drip Pads and 

Containment Buildings

(Mandatory)

$35,200 $35,200 $35,300

Intra-organizational 

Transfers (Voluntary) $4,490,000 $4,490,000 $4,490,000

Episodic Generation

(Voluntary) $7,650,000 $7,660,000 $7,680,000

TOTAL $12,200,000 $12,200,000 $12,200,000

Deleted: (VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS)

Deleted: ¶
ES-17

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

NON-MONETIZED BENEFITS

In addition to the monetized benefits presented above, the proposed rule may yield a 

variety of other non-quantifiable benefits. By rule provision, these benefits include the 

following:

CESQG Consolidation: Because LQGs are subject to more stringent waste handling 

requirements than CESQGs, transferring waste from CESQGs to LQGs within the same 

organization would improve the oversight and management of hazardous waste generated 

by CESQGs. In addition, to the extent that consolidating CESQGs currently dispose of 

their hazardous waste in Subtitle D landfills, the consolidation of CESQG waste to an 

LQG would divert the waste to more environmentally protective disposal at a Subtitle C 

facility.

Documentation of non-hazardous waste determinations: This proposed requirement 

would result in benefits associated with more efficient facility inspections and more 

appropriate and accurate waste determinations. With respect to the former, the 

documentation required of SQGs and LQGs under the rule would provide facility 

inspectors with supporting information for negative determinations, allowing them to 

more easily and efficiently assess the reasonableness of potentially questionable 

determinations. In addition, requiring documentation for negative determinations would

also provide SQGs and LQGs with an incentive to make more accurate determinations, as 

the documentation would make their determination processes more open to facility 

inspectors. These improved determination processes may reduce the volume of 

hazardous waste inappropriately identified and managed as non-hazardous waste. 

SQG and LQG re-notification: The data made available to EPA through re-notification 

would be more accurate and up-to-date than EPA’s current generator data, allowing the 

Agency to observe changes in facilities’ operations over time. Using this information, 

EPA can conduct more precise and meaningful reviews of waste generation activity. 

Similarly, the information collected through re-notification would help EPA and the 

states target their outreach, enforcement, and compliance assistance efforts. 

Marking and labeling of containers for SQGs and LQGs: Including more detailed 

information on container labels would help increase awareness of a container’s contents 

among the various individuals in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent 

improper treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste. The more detailed 

information that EPA proposes for display on container labels would also enhance the 

ability of emergency responders to limit adverse impacts from exposure to hazardous 

materials. 

LQG Closure: The proposed closure requirements for LQGs would ensure the 

containment of any contaminants left in place after the closure of an LQG storing waste 

in containers. In addition, the proposed notification requirements for LQG closure would 

(1) provide regulatory authorities with knowledge of the location and specifics of 

hazardous waste sites planned for closure; (2) allow the authorities to confirm that the 

unit is properly closed in compliance with the applicable closure regulations; and (3) 
ES-18

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

allow the authorities to monitor the unit during the post-closure period, alerting regulators 

in cases where generators may have abandoned the site or closed it improperly, or where 

other complications may have developed at the site.

Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response conditions for 

LQGs. EPA’s proposal that new LQGs prepare and submit an executive summary of their 

contingency plan would allow first responders to more easily discern the layout of a 

facility, the location of hazardous wastes, what those wastes are, and what chemicals to 

use (or not use) near those wastes. To the extent that first responders are able to respond 

more quickly and effectively based on this information, this provision of the proposed 

rule may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters, other first responders, 

and facility employees, and may also reduce exposure risk for local populations and 

ecosystems. 

Episodic generation: In addition to the cost savings associated with avoided SQG- or 

LQG-specific activities (as estimated above), this provision of the rule may result in 

additional cost savings associated with facilities maintaining a more consistent RCRA 

generator status over time. Changing status from one month to the next imposes an 

administrative burden on facilities as they re-visit the requirements for different generator 

status categories and implement measures to ensure compliance. If facilities are able to 

maintain a more consistent generator status over time, they would not need to re-visit the 

generator requirements as frequently or make as many changes to their internal controls 

to ensure compliance with RCRA.

Transfer facility requirements: EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling 

requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent 

with the proposed requirements for generators. As discussed above, including this 

information on the container would alert facility workers of the container’s contents and 

its potential hazards, which may help prevent the improper treatment of this material. 

Displaying this information on the containers may also help first responders limit 

exposure to local populations and ecosystems in the event of a fire or other emergency.

Biennial reporting requirements: The enhanced requirements that EPA is proposing for 

biennial reporting would make the BR more complete and consistent, allowing the 

Agency and the states to base their policy, programmatic, and enforcement decisions on 

more reliable hazardous waste generation and management data. 

Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste: The proposed labeling requirements for 

waste restricted from land disposal would result in benefits similar to those described 

above for generator labeling. 

Special requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes: Facilities able to obtain a waiver 

from the prohibition on locating containers holding ignitable or reactive waste less than 

15 meters (50 feet) from a facility’s property line may avoid costs associated with 

relocation or the reconfiguration of their facilities.
ES-19

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Exhibits ES-8 and ES-9 present the net benefits of the proposed rule based on discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The exhibits present net benefits separately 

for the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule and also examine net benefits for 

the mandatory and voluntary provisions combined. 

As indicated above, benefits could not be monetized for many of the rule’s mandatory 

provisions. For those provisions that could be monetized, the savings are presented as 

negative. These negative values, however, do not capture all the true benefits presented 

in Chapter 4. In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits represent 

underestimates of the net benefits associated with the rule’s mandatory provisions. 

For the voluntary provisions of the rule, this EA estimates positive net benefits ranging 

from $5.4 to $6.7 million per year based on discount rates of both 3 and 7 percent.5 For 

both the low impact and high impact scenarios, the positive net benefits for these 

provisions reflect the net benefits associated with the episodic generation provisions. As 

discussed above, organizations that opt into this provision are expected to experience cost 

savings associated with reduced transportation and hazardous waste disposal costs. The 

net benefits of this provision are also expected to be much higher under the high impact 

scenario than the low impact scenario. This difference reflects the assumption in this EA 

(stated in Chapter 4) that 50 percent of episodic generators would meet the rule 

conditions for taking advantage of this provision (i.e., no more than one episodic event 

per year, which lasts no more than one calendar month) under the low impact scenario 

while all episodic generators are assumed to meet these conditions under the high impact 

scenario.

 

5 Due to data limitations, this EA was not able to monetize the benefits associated with the voluntary provision related to 

waivers for ignitable and reactive wastes. 

Deleted: Net 

Deleted: benefits for these provisions are therefo

Deleted: reflect 

Deleted: that EPA was unable to monetize

Deleted: $6.8

Deleted: T
ES-20

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-8. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (3% DISCOUNT RATE)

REQUIREMENT

LOW-END SCENARIO HIGH END SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $386,000 

Not monetized --

$1,130,000 

Not monetized --

Re-notification $748,000 $960,000 

Labeling $3,160,000 $6,270,000 

Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 

Emergency Response Preparedness $416,000 $807,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 

BR Requirements $294,000 $931,000 

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,200 $35,200

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,220,000 $34,800 ($5,190,000) $12,000,000 $35,200 ($12,000,000)

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $562,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,280,000 $4,490,000 $212,000 

Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,750,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,660,000 $6,600,000 

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ($50) $88,000 Not monetized ($88,000)

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $771,000 $6,200,000 $5,430,000 $5,440,000 $12,200,000 $6,720,000 

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $5,990,000 $6,230,000 $240,000 $17,400,000 $12,200,000 ($5,230,000)

Notes:

All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
ES-21

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT ES-9. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (7% DISCOUNT RATE)

REQUIREMENT

LOW-END SCENARIO HIGH END SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $403,000

Not monetized --

$1,130,000 

Not monetized --

Re-notification $762,000 $960,000 

Labeling $3,370,000 $6,270,000 

Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 

Emergency Response Preparedness $420,000 $807,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 

BR Requirements $299,000 $931,000 

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,300 $35,300

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,480,000 $34,800 ($5,440,000) $11,900,000 $35,300 ($11,900,000)

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $584,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,320,000 $4,490,000 $173,000 

Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,760,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,680,000 $6,610,000

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ($50) $95,700 Not monetized ($95,700)

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $793,000 $6,200,000 $5,410,000 $5,490,000 $12,200,000 $6,690,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $6,270,000 $6,240,000 ($28,000) $17,400,000 $12,200,000 ($5,210,000)

Notes:

All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
ES-22

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this EA examines equity 

considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. 

Specifically, this EA considers the following (discussed further in Chapter 6): 

 Regulatory planning and review: Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency has determined that 

this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.

 Regulatory flexibility: The average per-facility cost impacts developed in this 

EA suggest that the proposed rule would not have significant economic impacts 

on a substantial number of small entities. 

 Unfunded mandates: Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any 

proposed rulemaking may result in “any Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Based on the magnitude 

of the proposed rule’s estimated cost impacts, EPA does not expect the rule to 

result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for either the private sector 

or state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate. 

 Federalism: The proposed rule is not expected to result in substantial direct 

compliance costs for hazardous waste generators owned by state and local 

governments. 

 Tribal governments: The estimated costs of the rule for tribal entities suggest 

that the rule would not impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

 Environmental justice: EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result 

in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income 

populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce any 

adverse effects associated with the management of hazardous waste, thus 

benefiting minority and low-income populations. 

 Children's health protection: The rule is not expected to result in a 

disproportionate adverse health impact on children. 

 Energy Impacts: The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse 

impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.

 Employment impacts: Insufficient data are available to quantify the potential 

impact of the proposed rule on employment. The economics literature suggests, 

however, that the costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise 
ES-23

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time,

environmental regulation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, 

such as the environmental protection sector. 6 

 Joint impacts of rules: Some of the hazardous waste generators regulated by the 

provisions of the proposed rule are also subject to RCRA requirements for 

TSDFs. Combined, the proposed changes to the generator standards and the 

existing regulations for TSDFs would ensure that the management of waste by 

facilities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of human health and the 

environment.

 

6 Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level 

Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412-436.
1-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

This document presents EPA’s analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of 

the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. This proposed rule has 

the dual purposes of enhancing protection of human health and the environment and 

improving the efficiency of the hazardous waste generator standards. EPA is publishing 

this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites 

comments from the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and conclusions presented 

herein.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION

Under the statutory authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

EPA originally promulgated the hazardous waste generator regulatory program in 1980. 

Since that time, the basic regulatory framework of the program has remained intact 

except for three major changes. First, pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the Agency established regulations in 1986 that

distinguished between generators generating more than 100 kilograms and less than 1,000 

kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month (small quantity generators, or SQGs) 

and generators generating 100 kilograms or less in a calendar month (conditionally 

exempt small quantity generators, or CESQGs).7 Prior to the 1986 rule, CESQGs did not 

exist as a separate generator class, and all facilities generating less than 1,000 kilograms 

of hazardous waste in a calendar month were subject to the same requirements. Second, 

and also as a result of HSWA, EPA established Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) 

regulations. The Agency’s LDR program established treatment standards for hazardous 

wastes, and specified requirements that generators, transporters, and owners or operators 

of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) that manage restricted wastes 

destined for land disposal must meet. Third, EPA modified the Uniform Hazardous 

Waste Manifest regulations in 2005 to standardize the content and appearance of the 

manifest form, make the forms available from a greater number of sources, and adopt 

new procedures for tracking certain types of hazardous waste shipments.

Over the course of the last 30 years, the Agency has become aware of ambiguities and 

gaps in the regulations, which, if corrected, could make the program more effective in 

protecting human health and the environment. For example, the current regulations do 

 

7 At the time, facilities in this category were referred to as, “Very Small Quantity Generators”.
1-2

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

not require small and large quantity generators to document situations where they 

generated a solid waste, as defined at 40 CFR 262.11, that is not a hazardous waste. 

However, generators often fail to accurately make a hazardous waste determination which 

can lead to the mismanagement of hazardous waste. In addition, current regulations do 

not require that hazardous waste container labels include information on the specific 

hazards of container contents or what risk these wastes could pose to human health and 

the environment when such waste is being accumulated on-site.

EPA has also become increasingly aware of certain inflexibilities in the generator 

regulations over the last 30 years. For example, some generators, particularly those

located in urban environments, may find it infeasible to meet the requirement that 

containers holding ignitable or reactive waste be placed at least 15 meters (~50 feet) back 

from the facility’s property line. In addition, current regulations require that a CESQG or 

SQG that experiences a one-time generation event resulting in the generation of more 

than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month comply with the regulatory 

requirements for large quantity generators (LQGs). Requiring CESQGs or SQGs that 

rarely exceed their normal regulatory status to meet the full LQG requirements as a result 

of such episodic events may be burdensome. To address these shortcomings in the 

current generator regulations, EPA is proposing several specific changes to the hazardous 

waste generator program. These improvements are relatively minor on an individual 

basis yet address a wide range of issues. In aggregate, the proposed changes to the 

program are expected to significantly improve regulatory efficiency and provide further 

protection of human health and the environment.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPO SED RULE

EPA is proposing several changes to the hazardous waste generator regulations. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to (1) revise different components of the hazardous waste 

regulatory program; (2) address gaps in the current regulations; (3) provide greater 

flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a costeffective manner; (4) reorganize the hazardous waste generator regulations to improve 

their usability among regulated facilities; and (5) make technical corrections and 

conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete programs, and 

improve the readability of the regulations.

Some provisions of the proposed rule represent substantive changes to the requirements 

with which hazardous waste generators must comply, while others are simply revisions or 

minor corrections unlikely to affect the activities of most individual generators. This EA 

focuses on the former, as these provisions are more likely to result in costs, benefits, 

and/or other economic impacts. These specific provisions are summarized below. While 

the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule are intended 

to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus 

voluntary. This section first describes the mandatory provisions of the rule, and then 

discusses the voluntary provisions. For a detailed discussion of all the changes that EPA 

Deleted: two 
1-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

is proposing to the generator regulations, please refer to the Preamble to the proposed 

rule.

1. Documentation of negative or non-hazardous waste determinations: The 

proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all 

hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste, as 

defined by 40 CFR 261.2, is not a RCRA hazardous waste. Under current 

regulations, generators must document and maintain records when they determine 

that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation 

requirement exists for negative determinations. 

2. SQG re-notification: To ensure that regulatory agencies have information on 

facilities generating hazardous waste, EPA is proposing that SQGs re-notify EPA 

of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year, similar to the 

existing requirement for LQGs. For each re-notification, a facility need only 

review its previous notification and either make changes if necessary or confirm 

that the information remains accurate.

3. Marking and labeling of containers, drip pads, and containment buildings for 

SQGs and LQGs: Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs label 

containers with the words, “Hazardous Waste.” While this wording provides 

some information regarding a container’s contents, it does not indicate the 

specific hazards associated with these contents or the risks that a waste may pose 

to human health and the environment. EPA is therefore proposing that SQGs and 

LQGs mark containers with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words 

that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an 

indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous 

waste characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs

mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous 

Waste” and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first 

placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the 

waste; and (3) an indication of the associated hazards (e.g., the applicable 

hazardous waste characteristic).

4. LQG closure conditions: EPA is proposing to strengthen the closure regulations 

for LQGs that accumulate hazardous wastes in containers in satellite 

accumulation areas (SAAs) or central accumulation areas (CAAs). Specifically, 

EPA proposes that if the generator cannot demonstrate that any contaminated 

soils can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the generator must 

close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post-closure care in accordance 

with the closure and post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 

265.310). In addition, for the purposes of closure, post-closure, and financial 

responsibility, such a waste accumulation unit is then considered to be a landfill, 

and the generator must meet all of the requirements for landfills specified in 

subparts G and H of part 265. 
1-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Also related to closure, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their 

authorized state within 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such 

generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either 

clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, that they have closed as a landfill. 

5. Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response 

conditions for LQGs: To improve the ability of emergency response teams to 

respond to an emergency, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an 

executive summary of their contingency plans to emergency management 

authorities. While EPA is not proposing changes to the preparedness and 

emergency response requirements for existing LQGs, it is taking comment on 

expanding this requirement to all LQGs.

6. Transfer facility requirements: EPA is proposing to change the marking and 

labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer 

facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all 

hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words 

“Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers 

(e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s

contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 

7. Biennial Reporting Requirements: EPA is proposing two substantive changes to 

the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs. First, the Agency is proposing that 

LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting 

year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Current 

regulation at the Federal level is unclear on this issue, and a limited number of 

states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated 

for only those months that they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing that 

LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless 

of whether the waste was transported off-site during the reporting year. Although 

the current EPA Biennial Report (BR) instructions state that generators should 

report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, 

Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a generator generates 

hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off-site during the next 

calendar year.

8. Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste: Consistent with the proposed 

marking and labeling requirements for SQGs and LQGs, EPA is proposing to 

require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be 

marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that identify the 

contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s 

contents.

9. Drip pad and containment building requirements: Under the existing 

regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days 

or less without a permit or interim status to also apply to SQGs. Therefore, SQGs
1-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

that use drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the LQG 90-day 

accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit) as well 

as the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development of a 

full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Under the proposed rule, EPA 

believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that 

accumulated hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings to comply 

with the 90-day accumulation limit, but to otherwise comply with the less 

stringent requirements for SQGs.

10. Intra-organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs

(voluntary): To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, EPA is proposing to allow 

CESQGs to send their hazardous waste voluntarily to an LQG under the 

ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG 

comply with certain conditions. The CESQG conditions are as follows: 

(a) A participating CESQG must label containers with the words “CESQG 

Hazardous Waste,” other words that identify the contents of the containers, 

and an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable 

hazardous waste characteristic). 

(b) CESQGs must comply with all applicable Department of Transportation 

regulations when sending their hazardous waste to an LQG. 

The proposed conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more 

CESQGs controlled by the same organization include the following:

(a) LQGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying 

the names, addresses, and contact information for the CESQGs that will be 

transferring hazardous waste to the LQG.

(b) LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from CESQGs 

that include the name, address, and contact information for each CESQG, as 

well as a description (i.e., quantity and hazardous waste codes) of each waste 

shipment received.

(c) LQGs must mark shipments from CESQGs with the date the hazardous waste 

was received from the CESQG.

(d) LQGs must manage all incoming CESQG hazardous waste in compliance 

with the regulations applicable to their LQG status.

(e) Hazardous waste received from CESQGs must be included in the receiving 

LQG’s BR submissions. 

11. Generators that temporarily change generator status due to an episodic event 

(voluntary): To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate 

much of their hazardous waste on an episodic basis, EPA is proposing to allow a 

CESQG or an SQG to voluntarily maintain its existing regulatory status in the 

event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a 

quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the 

Deleted: 
1-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

facility to a more stringent regulatory status. To avail itself of this provision, an 

SQG or CESQG would be subject to the following conditions:

(a) Limit of one episodic event per calendar year;

(b) Notify EPA or the authorized state at least 30 calendar days prior to initiating 

a planned episodic event or within 24 hours after an unplanned episodic 

event;

(c) CESQGs must obtain a RCRA ID number;

(d) Accumulation standards: CESQGs must mark containers with the date the 

episodic event began; label containers “Episodic Hazardous Waste”; manage 

hazardous waste in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, 

explosion, or release of hazardous waste; ensure that tanks are in good 

condition and compatible with the hazardous waste stored within; and 

identify an emergency coordinator for the duration of the event. SQGs must 

mark the container or tank log book with the date the episodic event began; 

label the container or write in the tank log book “Episodic Hazardous 

Waste”; mark the container or write in the tank log book words that identify 

the contents and indicate the hazards of the contents; and comply with the 

applicable accumulation conditions in §262.34(d) and (e).

(e) Hazardous waste generated from the episodic event must be managed on-site 

or shipped off-site via hazardous waste manifest to a permitted TSDF. For 

purposes of analysis, this EA assumes that CESQGs and SQGs would not 

seek to obtain a RCRA storage or treatment permit, but would instead ship 

their hazardous waste off-site to a permitted TSDF.

(f) Complete and maintain records that include (1) the beginning and end dates 

of the event, (2) a description of the event, (3) the types and quantities of 

hazardous wastes generated at the event, (4) a description of how the 

hazardous waste was managed, and (5) name(s) of hazardous waste 

transporters that transported the waste to a permitted TSDF.

12. Special requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes (voluntary): Current 

regulation requires that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive 

waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, 

LQGs may find it impossible to meet this requirement due to the relatively small 

footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA 

is proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility-specific waiver 

from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste 

accumulation property line requirement.
1-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

REPORT ORGANIZATION

To support development of the proposed rule, EPA developed this EA examining the 

rule’s costs, benefits, and other economic impacts. The data, methods, and results of this 

analysis are presented in the following chapters:

 Chapter 2: Characterization of the Regulated Universe. This chapter describes 

the universe of facilities potentially affected by the rule. Specifically, this 

chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs in 

the U.S. and its territories, outlines the quantity of hazardous waste generated by 

these facilities, and characterizes the management of this waste across various 

management methods. 

 Chapter 3: Assessment of Costs. Chapter 3 includes EPA’s assessment of the 

rule’s cost impacts. This chapter (1) identifies portions of the generator universe 

affected by individual rule provisions, (2) characterizes the regulatory baseline, 

(3) describes the data and methods employed for the assessment of the rule’s cost 

impacts, and (4) presents the results of the cost analysis.

 Chapter 4: Assessment of Benefits. After presenting the rule’s cost impacts, the 

focus shifts to EPA’s assessment of the rule’s benefits in Chapter 4. To the 

extent possible, these benefits are quantified. Benefits that EPA was unable to 

quantify are addressed qualitatively.

 Chapter 5: Comparison of Costs and Benefits. To synthesize the results 

presented in Chapters 3 and 4 and help readers understand the rule’s benefits in 

the context of its costs, and vice versa, this EA includes a brief chapter 

comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.

 Chapter 6: Equity Considerations and Other Impacts. This chapter assesses 

distributional and other impacts of the proposed rule, including impacts to small 

entities, environmental justice implications, children's health, impacts to Tribal 

Governments, energy use and distribution effects resulting from the rule, and 

joint impacts with other rules.
2-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CHAPTER 2 | POTENTIALLY IMPACTED UNIVERSE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an overview of the universe of facilities that may be potentially 

affected by the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. The proposed 

rule may affect a wide range of facility types across a number of industries. The 

information in this chapter provides context for the analysis of the costs and benefits 

associated with the proposed rulemaking. First, this chapter provides a profile of 

facilities that may be affected by the proposed rule. Second, this chapter characterizes the 

generation of hazardous waste by these facilities.

UNIVERSE OF FACILITI ES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE

According to the 2007 Economic Census, there are approximately 7.35 million employer 

establishments in the United States.8 Of these, the majority of establishments are nongenerators of RCRA hazardous waste. Consequently, only the small percentage of 

facilities that generate hazardous waste is likely to be affected by the proposed rule. As 

described in more detail in Chapter 3, the cost impact of the proposed rule for individual 

facilities will depend, in part, on their generator status under RCRA (i.e., LQG, SQG, or 

CESQG). Therefore, to assess the rule’s cost impacts, this EA estimates the distribution 

of potentially affected facilities across generator status categories. Exhibit 2-1 describes 

the generation thresholds for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs.

EXHIBIT 2-1: RCRA SUBTITLE C HA ZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION THRESHOLDS 1

CESQG SQG LQG

 Less than or equal to 100 kg 

of hazardous waste per 

month, and

 Less than or equal to 1 kg of 

acute hazardous waste per 

month.

 Greater than 100 kg and 

less than 1,000 kg of 

hazardous waste per 

calendar month, and

 Less than or equal to 1 kg 

of acute hazardous waste 

per month.

 Greater than or equal to 

1,000 kg of hazardous 

waste in a calendar 

month, or

 Greater than 1 kg of 

acute hazardous waste 

per month.

Notes:

1. Any facility that generates a total of 100 kilograms of any residue or contaminated soil, 

waste, or other debris resulting from the clean-up of a spill, into or on any land or water, of 

any acute hazardous wastes listed in §§ 261.31, or 261.33(e) would be considered an LQG.

 

8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census.
2-2

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the number of facilities that generate 

hazardous waste in the United States and its territories. The LQG universe is relatively 

well defined because LQGs are required to report their hazardous waste generation on a 

biennial basis to the EPA and/or state regulatory agencies. SQGs are required to submit a 

one-time notification of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA in order to 

obtain a RCRA ID for purposes of disposing hazardous waste, but they are not required to 

re-notify EPA of subsequent changes to their activities. CESQGs are not required to 

report their hazardous waste generation to EPA. While there are no Federal reporting 

requirements for SQGs and CESQGs, some states have hazardous waste reporting 

requirements for these facility types. The remainder of this section describes the 

methodology used to estimate the number of facilities that may be affected by the 

proposed rule by generator status category for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. 

This EA relies primarily on EPA’s BR database and EPA’s RCRAInfo database to 

estimate the number LQGs and SQGs in the potentially affected universe. Estimating the 

number of CESQGs nationwide is complicated by the fact that EPA and most states do 

not have mandatory notification or reporting requirements for CESQGs. To estimate the 

size of the CESQG universe, this EA extrapolates from the limited data collected from 

several states, including those that regulate CESQGs, and data for those CESQGs that 

voluntarily report to EPA. To inform this effort, data were compiled for 14 states across

the country, providing broad geographic representation across different regions and 

reflecting a mix of large and small states.9 

ESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF LQGs

This EA relies on the BR database to estimate the number of LQGs that may be affected 

by the proposed rule. Facilities that are considered LQGs under RCRA are required to 

report on the generation and management of their hazardous waste on a biennial basis. 

The BR database is the Agency’s primary repository for the information reported by these 

facilities.10 Based on the 2011 BR data submissions by state, EPA estimates there are 

14,262 LQG facilities in the United States.11 Of these, more than half of the LQGs 

nationwide are located in just nine states; these include: New York, California, Texas, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, and North Carolina. Geographically, 

LQGs are heavily concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Coast, and the Gulf Coast. 

The concentration of LQGs varies considerably by state. New York has the largest 

number of LQGs (1,471), while Wyoming has the smallest (15).

 

9 These states include Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

10 There is uncertainty regarding the comprehensiveness of the BR database due to underreporting associated with 

noncompliance by LQGs. The degree to which LQG facilities may fail to submit BR records to EPA is unknown.

11 U.S. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 2011 Data), Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by State.
2-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

ESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF SQGs

When a facility determines for the first time they have generated more than 100 and less 

than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a single calendar month, they are required to 

notify State agencies and EPA of their SQG regulatory status to obtain a RCRA ID to 

manage that hazardous waste. However, they are not required to re-notify EPA of 

subsequent changes in their generator status, address, ownership, or operating status (e.g., 

whether they have closed). Consequently, there is no way to determine if the status of an 

SQG has changed over time. SQGs are also not subject to Federal requirements for 

reporting hazardous waste generation to EPA on a regular basis (i.e., submitting BR 

records).

Despite this lack of data reported by SQGs, some SQG information is available in the BR 

database, as TSDFs are required to submit a waste received (WR) form for each facility 

(including SQGs) from whom they received hazardous waste with a hazardous waste 

manifest. The WR form includes the RCRA ID of the facility that shipped the hazardous 

waste to the TSDF along with information about the type and quantity of hazardous 

waste. Based on these data in the WR form, this EA develops two approaches to estimate 

the universe of SQGs that may be affected by the proposed rule. The first approach 

yields a low-end estimate of the number of SQGs, while the second provides a high-end 

estimate. Both approaches are described below. 

Low-end Estimate of the Number of SQGs

To derive a low-end estimate of the number of SQGs, EPA relied on information in the 

2011 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 in 2011.12 EPA then 

also included any new SQGs that notified after July 1 and, therefore, did not have to ship 

their hazardous waste off-site to a TSDF in 2011.

13

 Furthermore, as part of EPA’s data 

collection effort, several states provided information on the number of SQGs statewide.14 

Therefore, where state-level data were provided, EPA relied on this information rather 

than estimates derived from the BR and RCRAInfo databases. Using this approach, EPA 

developed a low-end estimate of approximately 45,800 SQGs in the United States and its 

territories. EPA considers this a low end estimate because it may not capture SQGs that 

manage hazardous waste on site or SQGs that TSDFs failed to report in the BR database. 

 

12 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.

13 SQGs can accumulate hazardous waste on-site for up to 180 days before it must be managed for treatment, storage, or 

disposal. Therefore, SQGs that notified after July 1 would not necessarily have to ship any hazardous waste off-site to a 

TSDF in the same calendar year and may not appear in any BR records for a given year.

14 These states include Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode 

Island, and Wisconsin.
2-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

High-end Estimate of the Number of SQGs

Due to uncertainty associated with whether information in the data sources described 

above fully represents the universe of active SQGs, EPA used an alternative approach to 

derive a high-end estimate for the number of SQGs. This approach is similar to the 

methodology employed in deriving the low-end estimate, but instead uses WR forms 

from any of the years 2007, 2009, or 2011 to identify any SQGs that shipped waste offsite in any of those three BR cycles. This yields an estimate of the number of facilities 

that were SQGs sometime between 2007 and 2011. Because some facilities may have 

been SQGs for one of these years but not all years, this approach may lead to 

overestimation of the number of SQGs. Due to this potential for overestimation, this EA 

applies this approach to develop the high-end estimate for SQGs. EPA used this 

approach for states from which no SQG counts were obtained, but continued to rely on 

the state estimates that were obtained otherwise. Using this alternative approach, EPA 

developed a high-end estimate of approximately 59,700 SQGs in the United States and its 

territories.

ESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF CESQGs

In the absence of reliable national data on the number and location of CESQGs, EPA 

used information collected from the states to estimate the universe of CESQGs potentially 

affected by the proposed rule. Specifically, EPA obtained estimates of the number of 

CESQGs statewide for 14 states, as described above. Then, EPA calculated the ratio of 

(1) CESQGs to SQGs (using low-end and high-end estimates for states with an uncertain 

number of SQGs) and (2) CESQGs to LQGs in aggregate across the 14 states. Exhibit 2-

2 summarizes data collected from the states on the number of CESQGs within each state 

and the corresponding ratio values developed. As shown in the exhibit, these ratios vary 

considerably across states. This analysis uses the composite ratio of 29.67 (as opposed to 

the simple average) for all 14 states combined, as shown in the last row of Exhibit 2-2.

For states where data on the number of CESQGs are unavailable, the composite ratios 

calculated above are multiplied by the number of SQGs and LQGs in the state to estimate 

an approximate range for the number of CESQGs.15 In aggregate, the lower-bound 

CESQG-to-SQG ratio (Column F) described in Exhibit 2-2 produces the lowest estimate, 

while the CESQG-to-LQG ratio (Column H) produces the highest estimate. The highend estimate is similar to the alternative estimate developed using the upper-bound 

CESQG-to-SQG ratio (Column G); the difference between the two is approximately 

seven percent. However, because these ratios are indexed to the number of SQGs and 

LQGs, which vary considerably across states, on a state-by-state basis the LQG-based 

estimate may be higher or lower than the SQG-based estimates. Therefore, to be 

 

15 For those states for which CESQG counts were directly available from the state, this EA uses the value provided by the 

state.
2-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

pragmatic in estimating the number of CESQGs, EPA reports the lowest and highest of 

these three estimates to highlight the degree of uncertainty regarding the number of 

CESQGs. Finally, these estimates are combined with the CESQG estimates collected 

from the 14 states also described above. 
2-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-2: NUMBER OF CESQG FACILITIES BY STATE AND CALCULATION OF RATIOS USED 

IN EXTRAPOLATION FOR NATI ONAL ESTIMATES

STATE

[A]

NUMBER OF 

LQGs

1

[B]

NUMBER OF SQGs

2

NUMBER 

OF 

CESQGs

2

[E]

RATIO OF CESQGs TO 

SQGs RATIO OF 

CESQGs

TO LQGs

[H=E/B]

LOW-END

[C]

HIGH-END

[D]

LOW-END

[F=E/D]

HIGH-END

[G=E/C]

Alabama 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 2.8 2.8 15.20

Arizona3 210 511 770 1,774 2.3 3.5 8.45

California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 3.6 3.6 17.17

Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 5.1 5.1 69.35

Hawaii3 31 122 165 692 4.2 5.7 22.32

Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 4.7 4.7 31.24

Maine 52 304 304 949 3.1 3.1 18.25

Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 15.9 15.9 67.95

Nevada3 68 196 280 3,187 11.4 16.3 46.87

New 

Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 9.0 9.0 18.18

New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 10.6 10.6 15.65

Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 3.0 3.0 32.31

Washington3 412 532 604 22,315 36.9 41.9 54.16

Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 7.6 7.6 23.66

TOTAL 4,354 19,633 20,091 129,200 6.4 6.6 29.67

Notes:

1. The number of LQGs appears as reported in EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2011 

Data, Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by 

State, 2011, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br11/national11.pdf on July 22, 2013.

2. Data sources for the number of SQGs and CESQGs are as follows. Alabama: E-mail communication with Ron Shell of 

the Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Arizona/Nevada/Hawaii: E-mail communication with 

Kathryn Faulkner of EPA Region 9 on May 28, 2013; California: E-mail communication with Schumin Wong of the 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control; Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Hazardous Waste Management Needs Assessment Report, January 2007, accessed at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/hazardous/2007HazardousWasteManagementNeed

sAssessmentReport.pdf on July 10, 2013; Massachusetts: E-mail communication with Mike Hurley of the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on October 16, 2012; Maine: E-mail communication with 

Cherie Plummer of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection on October 26, 2012; Minnesota: E-mail

communication with Kathy Gedde of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on October 17, 2012; New Hampshire: Email communication with John Duclos of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on June 26, 2013;

New Jersey: E-mail communication with Michael Hastry of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 

Rhode Island: E-mail communication with Mark Dennen of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management of May 14, 2013; Washington: E-mail communication with Rob Rieck of the Washington Department of 

Ecology on March 8, 2012; Wisconsin: E-mail communication with Pat Chabot of the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources on December 15, 2011.

3. Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada and Washington did not provide estimates of the number of SQGs. For these States, EPA 

estimated a range for the SQG universe by identifying the number of active SQGs as described earlier in this chapter.
2-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Using this methodology, EPA estimates that there are between approximately 293,000 

and 469,000 CESQGs in the United States. Therefore, EPA estimates that the combined 

total number of hazardous waste generators is between approximately 353,000 and 

543,000. Exhibit 2-3 describes the total number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs by State. 

EXHIBIT 2-3: UNIVERSE OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE BY 

STATE AND GENERATOR STATUS

STATE

[A]

NUMBER 

OF LQGs

[B]

NUMBER OF SQGs NUMBER OF CESQGs

TOTAL NUMBER OF 

GENERATORS

LOW-END

[C]

HIGH-END

[D]

LOW-END

[E]

HIGH-END

[F]

LOW-END

[G]

HIGH-END

[H]

Alabama 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 3,390 4,839 4,839

Alaska 27 96 143 617 941 740 1,111

Arizona 210 511 770 1,774 1,774 2,495 2,754

Arkansas 123 256 318 1,646 3,650 2,025 4,091

California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 21,000 28,138 28,138

Colorado 107 434 482 2,791 3,175 3,332 3,764

Connecticut 278 756 1,092 4,862 8,249 5,896 9,619

Delaware 49 155 218 997 1,454 1,201 1,721

District of Columbia 23 36 74 232 682 291 779

Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 19,350 23,429 23,429

Georgia 334 900 1,288 5,788 9,911 7,022 11,533

Guam 8 3 8 19 237 30 253

Hawaii 31 122 165 692 692 845 888

Idaho 19 79 89 508 586 606 694

Illinois 641 2,958 4,897 19,021 32,226 22,620 37,764

Indiana 503 790 1,156 5,080 14,926 6,373 16,585

Iowa 128 471 675 3,029 4,442 3,628 5,245

Kansas 170 480 680 3,087 5,045 3,737 5,895

Kentucky 269 355 469 2,283 7,982 2,907 8,720

Louisiana 331 705 1,068 4,534 9,822 5,570 11,221

Maine 52 304 304 949 949 1,305 1,305

Maryland 132 974 1,780 3,917 11,714 5,023 13,626

Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 12,559 15,644 15,644

Michigan 342 1,486 2,194 9,556 14,438 11,384 16,974

Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 21,743 23,429 23,429

Mississippi 128 210 286 1,350 3,798 1,688 4,212

Missouri 282 1,279 1,727 8,225 11,365 9,786 13,374

Montana 41 55 77 354 1,217 450 1,335

Navajo Nation 1 6 6 30 39 37 46

Nebraska 64 226 273 1,453 1,899 1,743 2,236
2-8

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-3: UNIVERSE OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE BY 

STATE AND GENERATOR STATUS

STATE

[A]

NUMBER 

OF LQGs

[B]

NUMBER OF SQGs NUMBER OF CESQGs

TOTAL NUMBER OF 

GENERATORS

LOW-END

[C]

HIGH-END

[D]

LOW-END

[E]

HIGH-END

[F]

LOW-END

[G]

HIGH-END

[H]

Nevada 68 196 280 3,187 3,187 3,451 3,535

New Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 1,818 2,119 2,119

New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 9,000 10,425 10,425

New Mexico 39 156 236 1,003 1,553 1,198 1,828

New York 1,471 1,983 3,255 12,752 43,650 16,206 48,376

North Carolina 437 1,169 1,786 7,518 12,967 9,124 15,190

North Dakota 19 62 78 399 564 480 661

Ohio 716 2,041 3,240 13,125 21,322 15,882 25,278

Oklahoma 179 379 502 2,437 5,312 2,995 5,993

Oregon 181 235 285 1,511 5,371 1,927 5,837

Pennsylvania 671 2,721 4,293 17,498 28,251 20,890 33,215

Puerto Rico 80 96 115 617 2,374 793 2,569

Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 2,100 2,865 2,865

South Carolina 257 485 722 3,119 7,626 3,861 8,605

South Dakota 33 182 256 979 1,685 1,194 1,974

Tennessee 334 442 710 2,842 9,911 3,618 10,955

Texas 1,006 1,471 2,164 9,460 29,852 11,937 33,022

Trust Territories 1 3 5 19 33 23 39

Utah 111 174 205 1,119 3,294 1,404 3,610

Vermont 39 185 250 1,157 1,645 1,381 1,934

Virgin Islands 2 6 5 33 59 41 66

Virginia 219 1,274 2,029 6,499 13,352 7,992 15,600

Washington 412 532 604 22,315 22,315 23,259 23,331

West Virginia 98 280 376 1,801 2,908 2,179 3,382

Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 9,323 10,944 10,944

Wyoming 15 75 99 445 651 535 765

TOTAL 14,262 45,762 59,702 292,912 469,378 352,936 543,342

Exhibits 2-4(A) and 2-4(B) show the geographic distribution of the universe of facilities 

potentially affected by the proposed rule across the United States using the low-end and 

high-end estimates. 
2-9

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-4(A): GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES USING LOW-END 

ESTIMATE
2-10

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-4(B): GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES USING HIGH-END 

ESTIMATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENE RATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIE S

This section characterizes the hazardous waste generation of facilities in the potentially 

regulated universe. The overall tonnages of hazardous waste and the number of waste 

streams are relevant to estimating the cost of managing this waste in compliance with the 

provisions of the proposed rule. The methodology for estimating the quantities of 

hazardous waste generation varies by generator status due to limitations in the available 

data. Where possible, this EA relies on generation data from EPA’s 2011 BR database. 

The BR database is used to develop annual aggregate and per facility generation 

estimates for LQG facilities. For other facility types, however, the data available from 

the BR database are, alone, insufficient to develop nationwide hazardous waste 

generation estimates. Consequently, this EA derives generation estimates for SQGs and 

CESQGs by combining the limited data available in the BR database with facility-level 

generation data obtained from individual states.
2-11

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION

EPA’s 2011 BR database is the primary data source for estimating hazardous waste 

generation for LQG facilities. In 2011, LQGs generated approximately 34.5 million tons 

of hazardous waste in aggregate. Combining this value with the LQG facility count 

presented above suggests that LQGs, on average, generate approximately 2,420 tons of 

hazardous waste per facility per year.16 The BR data also suggest that LQGs reported an 

average of 17 different waste streams per facility, with a few large facilities reporting 

several thousand waste streams.

Exhibit 2-5 reports the overall and average per facility hazardous waste quantities 

generated on an annual basis as well as the average number of waste streams per facility 

for LQGs by state. As shown in the exhibit, the Gulf States of Texas, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi account for approximately 64 percent of all hazardous waste generated by 

LQGs in the United States. In contrast, New York and California, which have the largest 

number of LQG facilities, collectively account for just 2.1 percent of all hazardous waste 

generated by LQGs. 

Exhibit 2-6 provides information on the distribution of LQGs by industry. Facilities in 

the BR database may be characterized by one or several North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes. To avoid double-counting, this EA uses the first 

NAICS codes listed in the BR database for a facility, which is considered to be the 

primary NAICS code. As shown in the exhibit, the four largest industries account for 

more than 95 percent of all hazardous waste generated by LQGs. These include: 

chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products manufacturing 

(NAICS 324); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and waste management and 

remediation services (NAICS 562). Overall, the nine largest industries account for more 

than half the LQGs in the affected universe. In addition to those listed above, these also 

include: fabricated metal product manufacturing (NAICS 332); transportation equipment 

manufacturing (NAICS 336); electrical equipment, appliance, and component 

manufacturing (NAICS 335); national security and international affairs (NAICS 928); 

and computer and electronic product manufacturing (NAICS 334).

 

16 This average (mean) value reflects a limited number of facilities in the BR that generate more than one million tons of 

hazardous waste per year. Thus, whereas the mean generation value per LQG is 2,420 tons per year, the median (50th

percentile) is 21.4 tons per year. Because the cost and benefit calculations in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, do not use 

LQG waste generation as an input (incremental costs and benefits for LQGs under the rule are not dependent on waste 

quantities), the choice of the mean or median has no impact on the estimated costs and benefits of the rule.
2-12

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-5: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY 

STATE

STATE

[A]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES 

IN BR DATA1

[B]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED2

(TONS) 

[C]

PERCENTAGE OF 

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER 

FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=C/B]

AVERAGE 

NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS 

PER FACILITY3

[F]

Alabama 223 586,799 1.7% 2,631 19

Alaska 27 1,940 0.0% 72 24

Arizona 210 202,842 0.6% 966 15

Arkansas 123 985,790 2.9% 8,015 25

California 1,223 558,941 1.6% 457 18

Colorado 107 31,065 0.1% 290 48

Connecticut 278 24,738 0.1% 89 12

Delaware 49 35,207 0.1% 719 45

District of Columbia 23 1,134 0.0% 49 12

Florida 279 201,980 0.6% 724 18

Georgia 334 210,858 0.6% 631 11

Guam 8 86 0.0% 11 47

Hawaii 31 423,550 1.2% 13,663 51

Idaho 19 3,482 0.0% 183 32

Illinois 641 675,522 2.0% 1,054 9

Indiana 503 888,022 2.6% 1,765 13

Iowa 128 49,366 0.1% 386 9

Kansas 170 1,244,754 3.6% 7,322 9

Kentucky 269 208,463 0.6% 775 27

Louisiana 331 4,399,502 12.7% 13,292 10

Maine 52 2,292 0.0% 44 9

Maryland 132 43,590 0.1% 330 10

Massachusetts 402 32,886 0.1% 82 16

Michigan 342 316,360 0.9% 925 86

Minnesota 320 353,037 1.0% 1,103 8

Mississippi 128 1,828,854 5.3% 14,288 8

Missouri 282 252,895 0.7% 897 12

Montana 41 5,883 0.0% 143 8

Navajo Nation 1 23 0.0% 23 7

Nebraska 64 34,404 0.1% 538 27

Nevada 68 12,030 0.0% 177 10

New Hampshire 100 3,237 0.0% 32 50

New Jersey 575 290,495 0.8% 505 62
2-13

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-5: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY 

STATE

STATE

[A]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES 

IN BR DATA1

[B]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED2

(TONS) 

[C]

PERCENTAGE OF 

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER 

FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=C/B]

AVERAGE 

NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS 

PER FACILITY3

[F]

New Mexico 39 1,037,384 3.0% 26,600 46

New York 1,471 186,479 0.5% 127 6

North Carolina 437 81,678 0.2% 187 24

North Dakota 19 455,867 1.3% 23,993 7

Ohio 716 1,601,885 4.6% 2,237 15

Oklahoma 179 44,688 0.1% 250 5

Oregon 181 93,514 0.3% 517 9

Pennsylvania 671 294,971 0.9% 440 11

Puerto Rico 80 37,222 0.1% 465 26

Rhode Island 65 8,406 0.0% 129 15

South Carolina 257 176,964 0.5% 689 10

South Dakota 33 1,334 0.0% 40 8

Tennessee 334 90,121 0.3% 270 6

Texas 1,006 15,683,407 45.4% 15,590 8

Trust Territories 1 6 0.0% 6 1

Utah 111 49,706 0.1% 448 30

Vermont 39 2,773 0.0% 71 13

Virgin Islands 2 1,251 0.0% 626 12

Virginia 219 68,300 0.2% 312 17

Washington 412 349,508 1.0% 848 17

West Virginia 98 54,511 0.2% 556 11

Wisconsin 394 287,938 0.8% 731 10

Wyoming 15 4,058 0.0% 271 11

TOTAL 14,262 34,522,000 100% 2,421 17

Notes:

1. The number of LQGs appears as reported in EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2011 Data, 

Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by State, 2011, 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br11/national11.pdf on July 22, 2013.

2. Hazardous waste quantities based on analysis of 2011 BR database. Figures may differ from those reported in EPA’s 

National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report due to minor discrepancies associated with rounding error in 

converting different units of measurement to tons. The quantities reported above are within +/-1 percent of the 

national data reported by EPA.

3. Number of waste streams based on analysis of 2011 BR database.
2-14

 

EXHIBIT 2-6: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY INDUSTRY

NAICS

[A]

NAICS DESCRIPTION

[B]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES IN 

BR DATA1

[C]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED1

(TONS) 

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=D/C]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS PER 

FACILITY1

[F]

325 Chemical manufacturing 2,197 21,309,876 9,700 17

324 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 188 6,643,349 35,337 20

331 Primary metal manufacturing 580 2,517,470 4,340 8

562 Waste management and remediation services 577 2,493,110 4,321 153

332 Fabricated metal product manufacturing 1,724 324,267 188 6

336 Transportation equipment manufacturing 861 155,444 181 13

335 Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing 222 127,740 575 9

928 National security and international affairs 220 89,824 408 61

334 Computer and electronic product manufacturing 579 89,800 155 13

481 Air transportation 22 78,162 3,553 19

327 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 149 59,550 400 7

326 Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 360 51,127 142 7

311 Food manufacturing 51 45,472 892 13

493 Warehousing and storage 285 44,736 157 8

488 Support activities for transportation 259 42,427 164 5

561 Administrative and support services 33 40,265 1,220 9

541 Professional, scientific, and technical services 462 32,137 70 21

221 Utilities 589 26,954 46 4

212 Mining (except oil and gas) 30 25,838 861 11

424 Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods 368 24,257 66 8

423 Merchant wholesalers, durable goods 81 24,214 299 5

333 Machinery manufacturing 324 21,403 66 8

237 Heavy and civil engineering construction 179 19,204 107 1
2-15

 

EXHIBIT 2-6: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY INDUSTRY

NAICS

[A]

NAICS DESCRIPTION

[B]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES IN 

BR DATA1

[C]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED1

(TONS) 

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=D/C]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS PER 

FACILITY1

[F]

621 Ambulatory health care services 116 18,751 162 6

611 Educational services 361 18,079 50 37

236 Construction of buildings 17 17,696 1,041 2

323 Printing and related support activities 262 17,656 67 4

486 Pipeline transportation 180 14,522 81 3

322 Paper manufacturing 157 14,321 91 6

321 Wood product manufacturing 140 13,571 97 3

339 Miscellaneous manufacturing 248 13,451 54 9

926 Administration of economic programs 39 11,944 306 2

811 Repair and maintenance 89 10,116 114 7

924 Administration of environmental quality programs 20 9,920 496 27

337 Furniture and related product manufacturing 139 8,881 64 3

211 Oil and gas extraction 48 8,554 178 6

483 Water transportation 29 7,655 264 5

531 Real estate 41 6,309 154 4

622 Hospitals 345 5,610 16 15

482 Rail transportation 34 4,824 142 3

313 Textile mills 52 4,515 87 6

812 Personal and laundry services 99 4,111 42 2

532 Rental and leasing services 16 4,057 254 6

921 Executive, legislative, and other general government support 34 2,569 76 13

485 Transit and ground passenger transportation 58 1,990 34 2

422 Wholesale trade, nondurable goods 27 1,804 67 12
2-16

 

EXHIBIT 2-6: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY INDUSTRY

NAICS

[A]

NAICS DESCRIPTION

[B]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES IN 

BR DATA1

[C]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED1

(TONS) 

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=D/C]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS PER 

FACILITY1

[F]

452 General merchandise stores 745 1,235 2 10

484 Truck transportation 59 1,127 19 19

927 Space research and technology 15 992 66 27

213 Support activities for mining 38 986 26 5

238 Specialty trade contractors 61 976 16 2

314 Textile product mills 10 965 96 4

421 Wholesale trade, durable goods 10 919 92 4

713 Amusement, gambling, and recreation industries 11 892 81 10

712 Museums, historical sites, and similar institutions 9 637 71 4

623 Nursing and residential care facilities 1 628 628 1

234 Heavy construction 3 535 178 7

447 Gasoline stations 45 446 10 2

446 Health and personal care stores 144 365 3 6

454 Non-store retailers 8 340 43 4

444 Building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers 31 315 10 8

492 Couriers and messengers 22 315 14 19

813 Religious, grant-making, civic, professional, and similar orgs. 5 302 60 6

551 Management of companies and enterprises 12 261 22 23

925 Administration of housing programs, urban planning, and 

community development 4 252 63 1

512 Motion picture and sound recording industries 4 217 54 7

312 Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 10 199 20 12

111 Crop production 5 194 39 4

425 Wholesale electronic markets and agents and brokers 2 182 91 2
2-17

 

EXHIBIT 2-6: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY INDUSTRY

NAICS

[A]

NAICS DESCRIPTION

[B]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES IN 

BR DATA1

[C]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED1

(TONS) 

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=D/C]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS PER 

FACILITY1

[F]

922 Justice, public order, and safety activities 14 178 13 11

522 Credit intermediation and related activities 3 139 46 5

511 Publishing industries (except Internet) 6 129 22 11

525 Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 6 115 19 13

235 Special trade contractors 7 98 14 4

711 Performing arts, spectator sports, and related industries 5 92 18 2

441 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 9 86 10 2

515 Broadcasting (except Internet) 1 66 66 1

115 Support activities for agriculture and forestry 3 43 14 3

315 Apparel manufacturing 2 34 17 2

316 Leather and allied product manufacturing 2 34 17 2

443 Electronics and appliance stores 1 30 30 1

453 Miscellaneous store retailers 6 26 4 1

722 Food services and drinking places 1 21 21 1

517 Telecommunications 4 13 3 1

445 Food and beverage stores 31 12 0 1

112 Animal production 3 11 4 4

518 Data processing, hosting and related services 1 10 10 61

491 Postal Service 1 10 10 76

233 Building, developing, and general contracting 2 9 5 2

448 Clothing and clothing accessories stores 1 9 9 1

923 Administration of Human Resource Programs 3 6 2 12

524 Insurance carriers and related activities 2 6 3 7
2-18

 

EXHIBIT 2-6: LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED BY INDUSTRY

NAICS

[A]

NAICS DESCRIPTION

[B]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES IN 

BR DATA1

[C]

TOTAL HAZARDOUS 

WASTE GENERATED1

(TONS) 

[D]

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

GENERATED PER FACILITY

(TONS)

[E=D/C]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS PER 

FACILITY1

[F]

814 Private households 1 5 5 1

514 Information services and data processing services 1 2 2 3

624 Social assistance 1 2 2 1

TOTAL 14,262 34,522,000 2,421 17

Notes:

1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database.
2-19

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

As described above, LQG facilities generate on average approximately 17 waste streams 

per facility per year. However, LQG hazardous waste generation data in the BR are 

heavily skewed based on a small number of facilities generating thousands of different 

waste streams on an annual basis. Specifically, in the 2011 BR data, half of the LQGs in 

the potentially affected universe manage five hazardous waste streams each year (the 

median) or less—while, in total, facilities generate an average of approximately 17 waste 

streams (the mean).17 Therefore, as described later in Chapter 3, this EA presents a range 

of cost estimates based on both the median and mean values presented above.

In reporting for the BR, facilities report waste codes for each waste stream to provide 

information on its contents and properties. However, the BR data do not include a 

quantitative analysis of the composition of a waste stream with respect to its reported 

waste codes (e.g., it does not report what percentage of the waste stream represents waste 

code F001). Therefore, it is not possible to determine the exact prevalence of individual 

constituents in each waste stream. 

Exhibit 2-7 describes the percentage of LQG waste streams associated with each waste 

code category. As shown in the exhibit, LQGs reported D waste codes for approximately 

92 percent of their waste streams in aggregate. F waste codes and U waste codes account 

for the next most frequently reported waste codes among LQGs in the BR data. 

Expanding on the data reported in Exhibit 2-7, Exhibit 2-8 reports the waste codes that 

appear in the highest percentage of all LQG waste streams. As shown in the exhibit, the 

12 most frequently reported waste codes are contained in 89 percent of all LQG waste 

streams.

EXHIBIT 2-7: PERCENTAGE OF LQG WASTE STREAMS CONTAINING INDIVIDUAL 

WASTE CODE CATEGORIES

WASTE CODE CATEGORY

[A]

PERCENTAGE OF WASTE STREAMS

[B]1

D Waste Codes 92%

F Waste Codes 26%

U Waste Codes 11%

P Waste Codes 4%

K Waste Codes 1%

Lab Packs2 1%

TOTAL NUMBER OF LQG WASTE 

STREAMS IN BR DATA 247,154

Notes:

1. Waste streams may be comprised of multiple waste codes; therefore 

rows do not add up to 100 percent.

 

17 In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50th percentile) of the distribution. The mean is the mathematical average, or 

the sum of all quantities in a dataset divided by the number of observations. 
2-20

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

2. Facilities may consolidate different types of hazardous waste in small 

containers and, in some cases, not report individual waste codes.
2-21

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-8: PERCENTAGE OF LQG WASTE STREAMS CONTAINING MOST 

FREQUENTLY REPORTED WASTE CODES

EPA WASTE CODE

[A]

WASTE DESCRIPTION

[B]

PERCENTAGE OF WASTE 

STREAMS

[C]1

D001 Ignitable Waste 53%

D002 Corrosive Waste 27%

F003 Non-halogenated Solvents2 20%

D007 Chromium 15%

F005 Non-halogenated Solvents3 13%

D008 Lead 13%

D035 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 10%

D003 Reactive Waste 9%

F002 Halogenated Solvents4 8%

D018 Benzene 8%

D006 Cadmium 7%

D005 Barium 7%

TOTAL ABOVE LISTED WASTE CODES 89%5

Notes:

1. The 2011 BR database contains 247,154 waste stream records for LQGs. Waste streams 

may be comprised of multiple waste codes; therefore rows do not add up to 100 

percent.

2. F003 wastes include: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, 

methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol.

3. F005 wastes include: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, 

pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane.

4. F002 wastes include: tetrachloroethylene; methylene chloride; trichloroethylene;

1,1,1-trichloroethane; chlorobenzene; 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane; orthodichlorobenzene; trichlorofluoromethane; and 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

5. At least one of the waste codes above appear in 89 percent of all waste streams; the 

remaining 11 percent of waste streams do not contain any of these waste codes.

SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION

Due to the limited information in the BR database for non-LQG facilities, this EA does 

not rely solely on the BR data to characterize hazardous waste generation for SQGs. 

Instead, for SQGs, this EA relies on the limited data available in the BR database 

supplemented by facility-level data provided by Maine and Washington.18 The data 

provided by Maine and Washington represent the most complete set of state data for SQG 

 

18 State data provided via e-mail communication with Cherie Plummer, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), 

on October 26, 2012 and e-mail communication with Jean Newman, Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) on November 

8, 2012.
2-22

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

facilities. SQG data were also provided by New Jersey;19 however, these data appear to 

be less complete than the SQG data for New Jersey already reported in the BR database.

The BR data are on their own are insufficient for estimating SQG hazardous waste 

quantities because most states do not require SQGs to submit generation data to EPA. 

For example, no SQG data are available for Texas and Mississippi, which are two of the 

largest states in terms of hazardous waste generation of LQGs. In addition, there are 

reporting discrepancies in the BR data regarding generator status and hazardous waste 

quantities. Based on the hazardous waste generation thresholds, facilities must generate 

greater than 100 kg and less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month (or 

between 1.3 and 13.2 tons per year) and also generate less than or equal to 1 kg of acute 

hazardous waste in a calendar month to be considered an SQG.20 However, a number of 

facilities identified as SQGs in the BR data have generation quantities that exceed these 

thresholds.21

Exhibit 2-9 provides a summary of the BR, Maine, and Washington data on hazardous 

waste generation for SQG facilities. The BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be 

SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and 

Washington data are also excluded from the BR data to avoid double-counting. In total, 

these data represent 1,927 facilities generating, on average, approximately 2.6 tons of 

hazardous waste per facility per year. Recognizing the uncertainty associated with this 

average value, Exhibit 2-9 also reports the interquartile range for SQG hazardous waste 

generation (i.e., the 25th to 75th percentiles), which is 0.7 to 3.3 tons per year. In addition, 

the data suggest that SQG facilities manage approximately eight waste streams per 

facility per year.

 

19 State data provided via e-mail communication with Mike Hastry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on 

October 19, 2012.

20 The RCRA generator status thresholds are based on monthly generation quantities. Since the BR data in this EA are 

reported in tons per year, the generator status thresholds are converted from kilograms to tons and the monthly threshold 

quantities are then multiplied by 12 to obtain equivalent values on an annual basis. For example, the minimum SQG 

threshold is calculated as follows: 100kg/month × 2.204 pounds/kg × 1 ton/2000 pounds × 12 months/year = 1.322 

tons/year.

21 Hazardous waste generation quantities reported by SQGs that exceed the LQG threshold may be indicative of either 

episodic generation or misreporting of generator status; however, the exact reason for this is unclear.
2-23

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-9: SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE 

STREAMS GENERATED

DATA SOURCE

[A]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES WITH 

GENERATION 

DATA

[B]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED 

(TONS)

[C]

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED PER 

FACILITY 

(TONS)

[D=C/B]

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF WASTE 

STREAMS PER 

FACILITY

[E]

2011 BR Data1

(excluding ME 

and WA)

1,051 3,270 3.1 9

Maine DEP 317 461 1.5 9

2

Washington DOE 559 1,183 2.1 6

TOTAL 1,927 4,914 2.6

(Median: 1.5)3

8

(Median: 4)3

Notes:

1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to 

be SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and 

Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.

2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data 

contain records for 9 SQG facilities in Maine that generated an average of 9 waste streams 

per facility per year.

3. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50th percentile) of the distribution.

CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION

To estimate hazardous waste generation for CESQGs, this EA relies on the limited 

information available in the BR data supplemented by facility-level information provided 

by Maine, New Jersey, and Washington.

22 As with SQGs, there is considerable 

uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation quantities of CESQGs. Based on 

the hazardous waste generator status thresholds, facilities must generate less than or equal 

to 100 kg of hazardous waste per month (or less than 1.3 tons per year) and less than 1 kg 

of acute hazardous waste per month to be considered a CESQG. Therefore, this analysis 

excludes facilities in the BR data that are reported to be CESQGs, but exceed these 

thresholds.

Exhibit 2-10 provides a summary of hazardous waste generation for CESQG facilities. 

The BR data exclude facilities that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste thresholds as well 

as data for Maine, New Jersey, and Washington to avoid double-counting. In total, these 

data represent 2,527 facilities generating, on average, approximately 0.3 tons of 

hazardous waste per facility per year. The interquartile range around this average value is 

 

22 State data provided via e-mail communication with Cherie Plummer, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), 

on October 26, 2012 and e-mail communication with Mike Hastry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on 

October 19, 2012.
2-24

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

0.14 to 0.60 tons per year. In addition, CESQG facilities generated an average of 

approximately four waste streams per facility per year.

EXHIBIT 2-10: CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE 

STREAMS GENERATED

DATA SOURCE

[A]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES 

WITH 

GENERATION 

DATA

[B]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED 

(TONS)

[C]

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED PER 

FACILITY 

(TONS)

[D=C/B]

AVERAGE 

NUMBER OF 

WASTE STREAMS 

PER FACILITY

[E]

2011 BR Data1

(excluding ME, 

NJ, and WA)

252 67 0.26 6

Maine DEP 917 161 0.18 2

2

New Jersey DEP 1,224 501 0.41 5

3

Washington DOE 127 42 0.33 3

TOTAL 2,520 771 0.31

(Median: 0.20)

4

4

(Median: 2)4

Notes:

1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported 

to be CESQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine, 

New Jersey, and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.

2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR 

data contain records for 2 CESQGs in Maine that generate an average of 2 waste streams 

per facility per year.

3. New Jersey did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The 

BR data contain records for 17 CESQGs in New Jersey that generate an average of 5 waste 

streams per facility per year.

4. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50th percentile) of the distribution.

AGGREGATE GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE A MONG FACILITIES POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED BY THE RULE

Exhibit 2-11 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially 

affected by the proposed rulemaking. The regulatory universe includes between 

approximately 353,000 and 543,000 facilities; however, not all of these facilities are 

affected by the proposed rule. For example, many CESQGs would only be affected if 

they voluntarily take advantage of the regulatory flexibility (e.g., intra-organizational 

transfers and episodic generation) provided by the rule. Due to uncertainty regarding the 

hazardous waste generation of SQGs and CESQGs, this EA bounds estimates of these 

generation quantities using the interquartile ranges reported above to characterize the 

lower-cost and higher-cost impact scenarios. Using this approach, facilities in the 

affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 34.65 and 34.82 million tons of 

hazardous waste per year. While there is uncertainty about the actual number of SQG 

and CESQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste generation, the vast majority of 
2-25

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated by LQGs. Therefore, in terms 

of volume, the difference between the low-end and high-end scenarios contemplated in 

this EA is approximately 167,000 tons of hazardous waste or less than 1 percent of all 

hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected universe. 

EXHIBIT 2-11: AGGREGATE ANNUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY GENERATOR STATUS (TONS)

SCENARIO

[A]

LQGs SQGs CESQGs TOTAL

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[B]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)

[C]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[D]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)1

[E]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[F]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)2

[G]

NUMBER 

OF 

FACILITIES

[H]

TOTAL 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

GENERATED

(TONS)

[I]

Low-end Estimate

14,262 34,522,000

45,762 70,000 292,912 59,000 352,936 34,651,000

High-end Estimate 59,702 152,000 469,378 144,000 543,342 34,818,000

Notes:

1. For SQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.54 tons/year of hazardous waste 

(the median). The high-end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.60 tons/year of hazardous waste 

(the mean).

2. For CESQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.20 tons/year of hazardous waste 

(the median). The high-end estimate assumes that CESQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.31 tons/year of hazardous 

waste.

MANAGEMENT OF HAZARD OUS WASTE

This section describes the management of hazardous waste by facilities in the affected 

universe. This EA uses the 2011 BR database to identify the primary management 

methods for hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs.23 The BR instructions allow 

facilities to report a number of different management methods, both on-site and off-site. 

For reporting purposes, this EA uses the number of waste streams reported in the 2011 

BR, combined with EPA’s aggregated management method codes for similar activities 

(e.g., chemical reduction, destruction, oxidation, or precipitation) established in the 2013 

BR. This reclassification resulted in a smaller number of categories than in prior editions 

of the BR. Specifically, this EA summarizes the frequency of 14 categories of on-site 

and off-site management methods (these are listed in Exhibit 2-12) reported in the 2011 

BR database using the 2011-to-2013 management method code crosswalk provided in the 

2013 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Form.

24

 

23 Note that the BR database contains only a subset of SQGs in the affected universe. There are insufficient data available to 

estimate the primary management methods for CESQGs.

24 EPA, 2013 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Form, February 2013, accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/br13/br2013rpt.pdf on July 23, 2013.
2-26

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Exhibit 2-12 reports the primary on-site and off-site management methods for LQGs and 

SQGs. Overall, LQGs manage approximately 84 percent of their hazardous waste on-site 

and 16 percent off-site. The primary on-site management methods for LQGs include: 

deep well or underground injection (64 percent of all waste); biological treatment (6 

percent); and reclamation and recovery (3 percent).25 The primary off-site management 

methods for LQGs include: reclamation and recovery (7 percent of all waste); landfill or 

surface impoundment (2 percent); and deep well or underground injection (2 percent).

However, the disproportionate share of deep well or underground injection is almost 

entirely attributable to the largest four industries in terms of overall hazardous waste 

generation: chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products 

manufacturing (NAICS 324); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and waste 

management and remediation services (NAICS 562). Excluding these industries, less 

than 0.01 percent of hazardous waste is managed through onsite deep well or 

underground injection. This also implies that, excluding these four industries, only 23 

percent of hazardous waste generated by LQGs is managed on-site—with slightly less 

than half of that, or 11 percent of overall hazardous waste, being discharged to a 

sewer/publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES)—while the remaining 77 percent of hazardous waste is 

managed off-site—including 18 percent being managed off-site for reclamation and 

recovery, 15 percent being transferred off-site with no treatment or recovery, and the 

remaining 44 percent being managed through other off-site methods.

Overall, SQG facilities manage approximately 77 percent of their hazardous waste offsite and 23 percent on-site. The primary off-site management methods for SQGs include: 

landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent of overall waste); transfer off-site with no 

treatment or recovery (16 percent); and reclamation and recovery (10 percent). The 

primary on-site management method for SQGs is sewering (23 percent of overall waste). 

One source of uncertainty regarding this analysis is that, in some cases, LQGs and SQGs 

that reported to EPA inadvertently submitted identical Waste Generation Management 

(GM) Forms for off-site and on-site waste management, thereby double-counting the 

amount of hazardous waste they generate.26 It is not possible to determine whether these 

wastes were managed on-site or off-site. Because this occurs infrequently and the 

associated waste quantities are generally small, this EA includes these wastes in both 

estimates of waste managed on-site and off-site. In addition, for a small number of 

facilities, the waste quantities generated and the waste quantities managed (both on-site 

and off-site) did not match. This may be attributable to reporting error or changes in 

reporting methods. As this discrepancy accounts for a very small proportion of all 

hazardous waste generated, no attempt was made to correct for it.

 

25 Figures represent the percentage of total hazardous waste generated, including both on-site and off-site methods.

26 As part of the BR submission, facilities must complete GM forms for wastes managed off-site (GM-4) and wastes managed 

on-site (GM-5). 
2-27

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 2-12: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY MANAGEMENT METHOD1

MANAGEMENT METHOD

[A]

LQGs

2 SQGs

ONSITE

[B] 

OFFSITE 

[C]

ONSITE

[D] 

OFFSITE 

[E]

Reclamation and Recovery 3% 7% 1% 10%

Incineration 1% 1% 0% 7%

Chemical Treatment 1% 1% 0% 3%

Biological Treatment 6% 0% 0% 0%

Physical Treatment 2% 0% 0% 0%

Stabilization Prior to Land Disposal at Another Site 0% 1% 0% 7%

Neutralization Only 0% 0% 0% 0%

Evaporation 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other Treatment (excluding Onsite Disposal) 4% 0% 0% 6%

Land Treatment or Application 0% 0% 0% 0%

Landfill or Surface Impoundment 1% 2% 0% 18%

Deepwell or Underground Injection 64% 2% 0% 9%

Discharge to Sewer/POTW or NPDES 2% 0% 23% 0%

Transfer Off-site with no Treatment or Recovery 0% 1% 0% 16%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WASTE 84% 16% 23% 77%

Notes:

1. Note that Columns B and C are additive and sum to 100 percent for LQGs. Similarly, 

Columns D and E are additive and sum to 100 percent for SQGs.

2. The primary management methods for the LQG universe largely mirror those for the 

SQG universe when excluding the four largest industries in terms of overall 

hazardous waste generation (NAICS 324, 325, 331, and 562), which account for the 

vast majority of on-site deepwell or underground injection.
3-1

CHAPTER 3 | ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter assesses the costs of managing hazardous waste under the provisions set 

forth in the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which are outlined 

in Chapter 1. This chapter begins by outlining EPA’s approach for addressing several 

uncertainties related to the rule’s cost impacts by estimating these costs as a range. 

Following this discussion, the chapter presents a detailed description of the methodology 

for the cost analysis. This includes a discussion of EPA’s approach for estimating costs 

based on the limited facility-level data summarized in Chapter 2 and identification of the 

requirements likely to have the most significant impact on costs. This chapter then 

presents the total annualized costs under the proposed rule, and concludes with a 

discussion of the analytic limitations associated with the cost analysis.

ESTIMATING COSTS AS A RANGE

To address uncertainties regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the 

amount of hazardous waste that they generate, and several of the cost-related inputs 

presented later in this chapter, this EA presents both low-impact and high-impact

estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule. The low-impact cost estimates 

presented in this chapter reflect the low-end estimates presented in Chapter 2 regarding 

(1) the number of facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per 

facility, and (3) the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated facilities. The 

low-impact estimates also reflect the low-end assumptions regarding any cost-related 

inputs for which a range of data inputs were available. Similarly, the high-impact cost 

estimates developed in this chapter reflect the high-end estimates for these variables. 

Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the low- and high-end assumptions regarding the number of 

facilities, the number of waste streams per facility, and the per-facility generation of 

hazardous waste. The distinctions between the low- and high-end values for these 

variables are as follows:

 Number of facilities: For SQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the number of 

SQGs identified on the Biennial Report WR form in 2011, whereas the high-end 

estimate reflects SQGs identified on the WR form for any of the years 2007, 

2009, or 2011. A more detailed discussion on these estimates can be found in 

Chapter 2. For CESQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the lowest value 

calculated among the CESQG-to-SQG and CESQG-to-LQG ratios presented in 

Chapter 2, whereas the high-end estimate reflects the highest value. The 

estimated number of LQGs is derived from the 2011 BR database and is the same 

for both the low-end and high-end scenario.
3-2

EXHIBIT 3-1: BASELINE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW-END ESTIMATE HIGH-END ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES

[B]

MEDIAN HAZARDOUS 

WASTE QUANTITY 

GENERATED PER 

FACILITY1

(TONS)

[C]

MEDIAN NUMBER OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

STREAMS PER FACILITY2

[D]

NUMBER OF 

FACILITIES

[E]

MEAN HAZARDOUS WASTE

QUANTITY GENERATED 

PER FACILITY1

(TONS)

[F]

MEAN NUMBER OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

STREAMS PER 

FACILITY3

[G]

LQG 14,262 21.39 5 14,262 2,420.56 17

SQG 45,762 1.54 4 59,702 2.55 8

CESQG 292,912 0.20 2 469,378 0.31 4

Notes:

1. Hazardous waste generation mean and median quantities are derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined 

with data provided by the States of Maine and Washington; for CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine, New Jersey, and 

Washington.

2. The median number of waste streams is derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: data provided by the State of 

Washington. SQGs and CESQGs are not required to report to the BR; therefore, the computed median value may not be generally representative of non-LQG 

facilities. Maine and New Jersey also provided data on waste quantities for SQGs and CESQGs, but did not report information on the number of waste streams 

managed.

3. The mean number of waste streams is derived from the following sources: For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data 

provided by the State of Washington.
3-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

 Number of waste streams per facility: Low-end values represent the median 

estimates presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high-end values represent the mean 

estimates.

 Annual hazardous waste generation per facility: Similar to the number of waste 

streams, the low-end generation values reflect the median values derived from the 

BR or state data, and the high-end values reflect the mean values estimated from 

these data sources.

COST METHODOLOGY

This section presents the methods employed in this EA to assess the cost impacts of the 

proposed rule. To begin, this section outlines the key assumptions reflected in several 

components of the cost analysis. Following this discussion, the chapter provides a 

detailed accounting of the unit costs associated with each provision of the proposed rule. 

For each provision, this section describes differences in requirements between the 

baseline and the proposed rule.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

The assessment of costs presented in this chapter relies upon several assumptions that 

influence the estimated costs of managing hazardous waste under the proposed rule. 

Some of these assumptions affect several components of the analysis. These include 

assumptions regarding (1) hourly labor costs that determine the costs associated with the

various provisions of the rule and (2) the discount rate. These assumptions are outlined in 

detail below. 

Hourly Labor Costs

Many of the unit costs presented in this chapter reflect the time required of managers, 

technicians, attorneys, and other staff for various hazardous waste management activities. 

The costs associated with this time are estimated as a function of the hourly labor costs 

associated with various professional and clerical positions. Exhibit 3-2 reports the fully 

loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis for facility staff, including lawyers and office 

clerks, who will likely implement the requirements associated with the proposed rule. 

The hourly costs presented in the exhibit reflect unloaded hourly wages reported by the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based on a full time employee working 40 hours a 

week multiplied by a loaded wage rate factor of 1.4825, which represents the addition of 

two cost factors: (1) a fringe benefit (e.g., insurance, disability income protection, 

retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, etc.) cost factor of 0.3625 and (2) an overhead 

cost factor of 0.12.27

 

27 The fringe benefit cost factor and overhead cost factors were obtained from Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A76: Performance of Commercial Activities, accessed at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on September 6, 2013.
3-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review
3-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-2: HOURLY LABOR COSTS

BLS OCCUPATION CATEOGRY

MEAN LOADED HOURLY

LABOR COST ($2012)

1,2,3

Managers $82.56

Technicians $39.82

Software Developers and Programmers $65.04

Office Clerks, General $21.04

Lawyers $94.09

Source:

1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

May 2012, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 on 

September 3, 2013.

2. Inflation factor based on December 2012 cost index using Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current-dollar March 2001 – June 2013, 

Table 1: Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation, by Occupational Group and

Industry (Seasonally Adjusted), accessed at 

http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf on September 6, 2013.

3. Loaded wage rates calculated using fringe benefit and overhead cost factors from 

Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A-76: Performance of Commercial 

Activities, accessed at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on 

September 6, 2013.

Discount Rates

This EA presents the cost impacts of the rule in present value and annualized terms based 

on discount rates of three and seven percent over a 20-year forecast period. The present 

value represents the value of a payment or stream of payments in common dollar terms. 

That is, it is the sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today's dollars. Translation 

of future costs to present value terms requires the following: (a) projected future costs; and 

(b) the specific years in which these impacts are expected to be incurred. With these data, 

the present value of the future stream of impacts (PVc) from year t1 to T is measured in 

2012 dollars according to the following standard formula:28

where Ct is the cost of each management activity in year t and r is the discount rate.29 

 

28 To derive the present value of future impacts, t1 is 2016 and T is the final year of the forecast. This EA uses a 20-year 

forecast period.

29 To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the OMB specifies the use of a real rate of seven percent. In 

addition, OMB recommends sensitivity analysis using other discount rates such as three percent, which some economists 

believe more appropriately reflects the social rate of time preference. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, 
3-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

As indicated above, this EA also expresses cost impacts for each hazardous waste 

management activity as annualized values. Annualized values are calculated to provide a 

comparison of impacts across activities with varying time components and forecast 

periods.30 Annualized future impacts (APVc) are calculated according to the following 

standard formula:

where N is the number of years in the forecast period.

Other Assumptions

The hazardous waste generation quantities reported above in Exhibit 3-1 inform several

baseline waste management assumptions in this EA. Specifically, this EA relies on the 

mean and median per facility generation quantities to develop estimates of the number of 

storage containers used by hazardous waste generators. Generally, these facilities are 

assumed to accumulate hazardous waste in 55-gallon drums, which are stored and 

eventually transported to disposal sites once filled. This EA assumes that facilities need 

to maintain a sufficient number of drums to manage all of their hazardous waste, whether 

it is managed on-site or off-site. This EA assumes that a filled 55-gallon drum holds 

between 140 and 275 pounds of waste (an average of 207.5 pounds) in solid form or 

between 250 and 400 pounds of waste in liquid or sludge form (an average of 325 

pounds).31 Based on 2011 BR data, approximately 90 percent of all hazardous waste 

managed is in liquid or sludge form and 10 percent is in solid form. Therefore, this EA

assumes that the average 55-gallon drum holds approximately 313 pounds of hazardous 

waste, which represents the weighted average of the liquid/sludge and solid values 

presented above. With respect to transportation, this EA assumes that a standard 18-

wheeler trailer can carry up to eighty 55-gallon drums.32

 

September 17, 2003 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Draft 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits 

of Federal Regulations; Notice,” 68 Federal Register 5492, February 3, 2003.

30 When comparing annualized costs using different discount rates, the values may vary depending on the timing of costs over 

the analytical time horizon. A priori, there is no rule stating whether a lower or higher discount rate should yield a higher 

annualized cost, as this depends on the timing of costs during the analytic time horizon. As described above, the 

annualization method involves two steps, which have countervailing influences on the magnitude of the annualized cost: 

the present value calculation and the standard annualization formula. In general, if the majority of costs are experienced in

the upfront years, the annualized cost would be higher using a higher discount rate. However, if the majority of costs are 

experienced in the years further out, the annualized costs would be higher using a lower discount rate. For a constant 

stream of payments, the annualized costs are not sensitive to the discount rate and will be equivalent.

31 Based on personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on September 10, 2013.

32 J. Wideberg, E. Dahlberg, and M. Svensson, Study of Stability Measures and Legislation of Heavy Articulated Vehicles in 

Different OECD Countries, University of Seville, KTH, and Scania, May 2006. Available at: 

http://www.mne.psu.edu/ifrtt/ConferenceProceedings/ISHVWD_9_2006/docs/pdfs/session%206/s6-2%2090.pdf.
3-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Based on the waste generation values in Exhibit 3-1, this EA’s drum capacity assumption 

of 313 pounds per drum implies that a typical CESQG manages approximately two 55-

gallon drums of hazardous waste per year, while a typical SQG manages between 

approximately 10 and 17 drums per year. To estimate the number of drums used by 

LQGs, this EA applies the 313-pound-per-drum figure to the median LQG generation 

value from Exhibit 3-1. Based on this value, the typical LQG manages approximately 

137 drums per year. The median generation value for LQGs is likely to be more 

representative than the mean because the latter is skewed by a limited number of larger 

facilities, which are more likely to use storage tanks than drums.

METHODS FOR ASSESSING COSTS OF RULE PROVISIONS

This section describes the methods employed to assess the costs associated with each of 

the rule provisions outlined in Chapter 1. For each provision, costs are estimated on an 

incremental basis relative to the baseline.33 While the majority of the requirements are 

mandatory, three provisions of the rule (intra-organizational transfers, episodic 

generation, and special requirements for ignitable and reactive waste) are intended to 

provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus 

voluntary. This section first reports the costs associated with the mandatory provisions of 

the rule and then reports costs for the voluntary provisions. In this section, costs are 

annualized over a 20-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.34

Negative Hazardous Waste Determinations

The proposed rule would require that LQGs and SQGs maintain records of negative or 

non-hazardous waste determinations. Under current RCRA regulations, facilities must 

document and maintain records when they determine that they have generated a 

hazardous waste, but no such documentation is required for negative determinations. 

Several states already require facilities to document negative determinations.35 

Additionally, other states require facilities to provide documentation for questionable 

waste that is claimed to be non-hazardous waste—this implies that several States 

indirectly require documentation of negative determinations.36 Therefore, the proposed 

rule imposes a cost only to those facilities located in states that do not currently require 

this documentation. Approximately 7,000 LQGs and between approximately 20,600 and 

 

33 The sub-sections below present much of the same information regarding the rule provisions as presented in Chapter 1. 

This information is repeated here to provide context for the methods discussion for each provision.

34 In the results section at the end of this chapter, total costs are also reported on an undiscounted basis and using a 3 

percent discount rate.

35 The following 17 States currently require facilities to document negative determinations: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode 

Island, Tennessee, and Texas. Based on e-mail communication with Jim O’Leary of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery on October 21, 2013.

36 The following 8 States reported that they indirectly require documentation of negative determinations: Florida, Georgia, 

Illinois, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. Based on e-mail communication with Jim 

O’Leary of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 21, 2013.

Deleted: two 

Deleted: and
3-8

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

26,900 SQGs are located in states that do not directly or indirectly require documentation 

of negative determinations. Thus, EPA estimates that approximately 46 percent of LQGs 

and SQGs in the affected universe would likely be affected by this provision of the 

proposed rule.37

The costs of hazardous waste determinations are composed of the following: (1) the cost 

of making a determination, (2) the cost of documenting the determination, and (3) the 

cost of maintaining records of a determination. Under the existing regulations, facilities 

must determine whether they generate RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, the cost of 

making negative hazardous waste determinations is already incurred by generators in the 

baseline. The only costs associated with the proposed rule with respect to determinations 

are the costs of documenting and maintaining records of negative determinations. 

To estimate the cost of documenting and maintaining records of a hazardous waste 

determination, this EA relies on EPA’s waste analysis and recordkeeping requirements 

for generators that manage hazardous waste or soil contaminated with hazardous waste. 

EPA estimates that the time burden to prepare the one-time documentation of a hazardous 

waste determination for contaminated soil is approximately 0.25 hours (or 15 minutes) of 

a technician’s time and that the cost to maintain records of all supporting data is 

approximately 0.1 hours (or 6 minutes) of an office clerk’s time plus photocopying costs 

of approximately $0.11 per record.38 Combining this information with the hourly labor 

costs presented above, each negative waste determination that a facility must document as 

a result of the proposed rule has a cost of $12.17. Facilities must maintain this 

information in their records for a minimum of three years from the date that the waste 

was last sent for on-site or off-site treatment, storage, or disposal.

This unit cost value for documenting hazardous waste determinations would be applied to 

all of an LQG or SQG’s non-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule’s 

implementation and to all new non-hazardous waste streams in subsequent years.39 

However, the number of non-hazardous waste streams generated by an LQG or SQG—

both presently and in the future—is uncertain, as EPA does not require LQGs and SQGs 

to report negative determinations to the Agency. To estimate the number of nonhazardous waste streams per generator, this EA relies on limited data from a sample of 29

inspection reports from the State of Connecticut.40 Most state agencies do not maintain 

records of negative waste determinations, even if facilities are required to do so. The 

 

37 EPA estimates that states that do not require documentation of negative determinations account for approximately 49 

percent (7,010 ÷ 14,262) of LQGs and approximately 45 percent (20,623 ÷ 45,762 or 26,920 ÷ 59,702) of SQGs. 

38 EPA, ICR 1442.19 Land Disposal Restrictions, August 2007.

39 For purposes of analysis, this EA assumes a constant sized universe. In reality, firms are constantly entering and exiting the 

market. While this EA accounts for new facilities and closures later in this Chapter, it is assumed that the net effect on the 

size of the universe is negligible because firms are entering and exiting the market at a similar rate. 

40 Data provided by Ross Bunnell of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on March 14, 2013. 

Facility inspections were conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2012. 
3-9

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Connecticut data represent a variety of facility types (LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs) and 

industries. On average, these facilities generate approximately 17 waste streams per year. 

Of these, the Connecticut data suggest that approximately 38 percent of waste streams 

generated were determined to be non-hazardous, approximately 51 percent were 

determined to be hazardous, and approximately 12 percent were managed as universal 

waste. Therefore, the ratio of non-hazardous waste streams to hazardous waste streams is 

approximately 0.75 to 1.41

Based on analysis of the 2011 BR data, LQG facilities generate, on average, between 5 

and 17 hazardous waste streams per facility per year (see Exhibit 3-1). Thus, each LQG 

is also assumed to generate between 4 and 13 non-hazardous waste streams using a ratio 

of 0.75 negative determinations per positive determination. Applying this range to the 

cost per waste stream, the total cost of this provision for LQGs in the first year of the 

rule’s implementation is approximately $49 to $158 per facility. Using the same 

approach for SQGs, which on average generate between four and eight hazardous waste 

streams per year, yields an estimate of three to six non-hazardous waste streams per year, 

which translates to costs of $37 to $73 per facility during the first year of the rule’s 

implementation. 

As noted above, the costs of this provision after the first year of rule implementation will 

include only the cost of documenting negative determinations for new non-hazardous 

waste streams not generated during the first year the rule is in effect. To estimate the 

number of new waste streams per generator, this EA relies on sample data from the BR. 

More specifically, based on a random sample of 100 facilities from the BR that submitted 

records in both 2009 and 2011, approximately 50 percent of hazardous waste streams that 

were reported in 2011 were also reported in 2009 (based on an analysis of waste codes). 

Furthermore, based on a random sample of a subset (19 of 100) of these facilities, 

approximately 80 percent of the waste streams with matching waste codes between 2009 

and 2011 were identical, based on an analysis of their written waste descriptions. This 

lowers the effective match rate to approximately 40 percent (80 percent of 50 percent). 

This implies that approximately 60 percent of waste streams generated each reporting 

period are new. Therefore, starting with an average of 13 negative determination waste 

streams per LQG facility in the high impact scenario, approximately eight of these are 

new each biennial reporting period, or about four each year (assuming that these are split 

evenly across the two years between reporting periods).42 In the low impact scenario, 

LQGs are estimated to generate an average of four negative determination wastes streams 

per year (see above), of which two are new each reporting period (60 percent of four 

waste streams rounded to the nearest waste stream), or approximately one per year. 

 

41 This EA focuses on the ratio of non-hazardous to hazardous waste streams because generators are not required to include 

universal waste in their BR data. As described below, this EA estimates the number of non-hazardous waste streams based 

on the number of hazardous waste streams included in the BR.

42 In the high impact scenario, the number of new non-hazardous waste streams managed by LQGs is calculated as 13 × 60% = 

7.8, which is approximately 8 per reporting period or 4 per year.
3-10

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Applying the same methodology, SQGs manage approximately two new non-hazardous 

waste streams each year in the high impact scenario and approximately one new nonhazardous waste stream each year in the low impact scenario. 

Exhibit 3-3 reports the average number of hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams 

generated by LQGs and SQGs in the potentially affected universe on a per facility basis. 

As described above, the proposed rule would require facilities to document and maintain 

records of all non-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule and all new nonhazardous waste streams thereafter. 

EXHIBIT 3-3: WASTE GENERATION CHARACERTISTICS OF AFFECTED FACILITIE S

SCENARIO

FACILITY 

TYPE

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE STREAMS

AVERAGE NUMBER OF NON-HAZARDOUS 

WASTE STREAMS

TOTAL

NEW WASTE 

STREAMS PER YEAR

Low Impact 

Estimate

LQG 5 4 1

SQG 4 3 1

High Impact 

Estimate

LQG 17 13 4

SQG 8 6 2

Exhibit 3-4 reports the estimated annualized costs of this provision on both a per-facility 

and aggregate basis, by facility type. Costs are also broken out by one-time costs (i.e., 

first year only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs incurred each year thereafter).
3-11

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-4: ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR NEGATIVE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE DETE RMINATIONS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, US ING A 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]a

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]b

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 7,010 $4.29 $11.09 $30,100 $77,800 $108,000

SQG 20,623 $3.22 $11.09 $66,400 $229,000 $295,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 27,633 N/A N/A $96,500 $307,000 $403,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED 

COST

TOTAL

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]c

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]d

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 7,010 $13.95 $44.38 $97,800 $311,000 $409,000

SQG 26,920 $6.44 $22.19 $173,000 $597,000 $771,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 33,930 N/A N/A $271,000 $908,000 $1,180,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. One-time costs represent a first-year cost of $48.67 ($4.29 on an annualized basis) per LQG ($12.17 

per waste stream × 4 waste streams) and $36.50 ($3.22 on an annualized basis) per SQG ($12.17 × 3 

waste streams) under the low impact scenario.

b. Recurring costs represent $12.17 to document one new non-hazardous waste determination per 

facility each year after the first year of the rule in years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon 

in the low impact scenario. This translates to $11.09 on an annualized basis, when annualized over 

20 years. In other words, the $12.17 incurred in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed 

in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present 

value number, and this present value sum is then annualized.

c. One-time costs represent a first-year cost of $158.18 ($12.17 × 13 waste streams), or $13.95 on an 

annualized basis, per LQG and $73.01 ($12.17 × 6 waste streams), or $6.44 on an annualized basis, 

per SQG under the high impact scenario.

d. Recurring costs represent $12.17 per waste stream and there are four new non-hazardous waste 

streams each year after the first year of the rule (years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon) 

per LQG ($44.38 on an annualized basis when annualized over 20 years) and two non-hazardous 

waste streams per SQG ($22.19 on an annualized basis) in the high impact scenario. For example, 

the $48.68 ($12.17 × 4) incurred by LQGs in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in 

present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present

value number, and this present value sum is then annualized.
3-12

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Re-notification

Under the proposed rule, SQGs and LQGs are required to re-notify EPA of their 

hazardous waste generation activities every other year. LQGs are already required to renotify EPA of their hazardous waste generator status through the BR. Therefore, this 

requirement only represents a cost for SQGs. However, twelve States and the District of 

Colombia already require SQGs to re-notify.43 There are approximately 5,500 to 8,000 

SQGs in states that currently require SQG re-notification; therefore, the proposed rule 

would impact between approximately 40,000 and 52,000 SQGs in states that do not 

currently require re-notification. 

Specifically, for each re-notification, a facility will need to review its previous 

notification and either make changes, if necessary, or confirm that the information 

remains accurate. EPA estimates that the initial cost of notification is approximately 

$45.15 per facility and the cost of re-notification is approximately $32.01 (in 2012 

dollars).44 Because facilities that must record changes in their re-notification form may 

require additional time to collect this information, this EA assumes that these facilities are 

likely to incur costs similar to the initial notification, while facilities that need only 

confirm that the previous information is still accurate are likely to incur typical renotification costs. 

To estimate the number of facilities that may take additional time to complete the renotification, EPA analyzed BR data for approximately 18,450 facilities that submitted 

multiple BR records between 2003 and 2011 to assess whether those facilities reported 

changes in their general facility information between reporting periods. These include 

changes to a facility’s: (1) physical location; (2) mailing address; (3) contact information; 

(4) ownership; and (5) generator status. 

Identifying changes between reporting years is complicated by the fact that facilities may 

report the same information differently each year. Thus, the most significant challenge in 

identifying actual information changes is eliminating false mismatches, which occur as a 

result of: misspellings, typos, abbreviations, acronyms, nicknames, titles, prefixes, 

suffixes, and word order. These false mismatches may account for the majority of 

changes in physical location and mailing address, which tend to occur less frequently than 

changes in contact information. Address mismatches are particularly challenging because 

zip codes may change while street addresses do not, and generators may alternate 

between listing adjoining or enveloping towns/cities/metro-areas/counties in different 

reporting years. For example, a facility may list its location as being in Phoenix one year, 

 

43 States that currently require SQG re-notification include: Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, North 

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Colombia. EPA, 

ASTSWMO Survey Responses, March 2012, provided by Jim O'Leary of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on 

August 26, 2013.

44 Time burden and O&M cost estimates are based on Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 

0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit 

Application and Modification, September 2012.
3-13

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

but in Glendale (a Phoenix suburb) the next. Considering these and other irregularities in 

the reporting of facility information in the BR, this EA uses the following approach to 

identify changes between reporting years:

1) For contact and owner names, remove titles, prefixes, and suffixes to more 

easily identify actual matches. 

2) Use a computer algorithm to calculate the “Levenshtein distance” between 

any two entries for a generator.45 Then eliminate matches where the 

Levenshtein distance is less than four or where less than 30 percent of the 

text characters change from one year to the next, because these are highly 

likely to be identical entries, but for typos, misspellings, etc.

3) For contact and owner names, eliminate mismatches where the last name 

does not change but the first name (or remaining part of the name) is a 

variation on another entry. For example, “Bill Rogers” and “William Rogers” 

or “EI Dupont”, “EI Dupont De Nemours”, and “E I Dupont De Nemours & 

Co.”

4) Use a search and replace method to clean the data of common typos or 

abbreviations, for example changing “PHX, ARIZONA” to “PHOENIX, 

ARIZONA.” 

5) Finally, review any remaining changes between reporting years manually to 

identify and remove the remaining false mismatches.

This methodology attempts to remove false mismatches that appear to be changes but are 

likely due to input error or inconsistent reporting methods over time. For all of the 

information changes identified, a manual check of the records was performed to ensure 

the accuracy of the results. However, this methodology is limited by the sheer volume of 

data and limitless possibilities for variation in user data entry. For contact and owner 

names, a limitation of this approach is that name changes that may occur due to marriage 

or divorce (i.e., an individual’s surname changes while their first name does not) are not 

easily verified. These types of name-changes occur for a non-trivial percentage of 

facilities (approximately 200 per year, or five percent of all name changes in the BR 

data). Another limitation of this approach is that many facilities submitted BR records in 

only one year, making it impossible to identify potential changes for these facilities. 

Based on this approach, this EA estimates that approximately 35.2 percent of facilities 

had at least one reason to notify EPA of a change in their general facility information 

between biennial reporting periods (or approximately 17.6 percent on an annual basis), 

with the most common reasons being a change in the primary contact name or a change in 

 

45 The Levenshtein distance between two entries is the minimum number of single-character edits (insertion, deletion, or 

substitution) required to change one entry into the other. For example, the Levenshtein distance between “Dave Rose” and 

“David Rose” is calculated as 2, as follows: (1) substituting “i” for “e” and (2) inserting “d.” 
3-14

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

ownership. Exhibit 3-5 reports the percentage of facilities that reported changes in their 

generator information to EPA across multiple BR reporting periods.

EXHIBIT 3-5: PERCENTAGE OF FACILTIES REPORTING A CHANGE IN THEIR 

GENERATOR INFORMATIO N TO EPA (ON A BIENNIAL BASIS) 1

REASON FOR REPORTING CHANGE IN 

GENERATOR INFORMATION PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES

Physical Location Change 0.05%

Mailing Address Change 3.9%

Contact Name Change 33.0%

Owner Change 8.2%

Generator Status Change 4.7%

At Least One Notification for Any Reason 35.2%2

Notes:

1. Source: EPA’s BR database records from 2003 to 2011.

2. This value is less than the sum of the values associated with individual reasons for reporting 

a change in generator information because some facilities may have multiple reasons for 

reporting a change.

Based on the 2003-2011 BR data, approximately 65 percent of facilities would likely 

incur standard re-notification costs every other year, while approximately 35 percent of 

facilities may require additional time to report changes in generator information as part of 

their re-notification. Therefore, the average per facility cost of re-notification is 

approximately $36.64 every other year.46 This represents a cost for SQGs in states that 

do not currently require re-notification, but is already incurred by LQGs and a subset of 

SQGs in states with reporting requirements in the baseline.

Exhibit 3-6 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of re-notification under 

this provision of the rule by facility type. All of the costs associated with this provision 

of the rule are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.

 

46 The average per facility cost of re-notification is calculated as ($45.15 × 35%) + ($32.01 × 65%) = $36.64.
3-15

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-6: ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR RE-NOTIFICATION 

(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DI SCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNAULIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 40,229 $0.00 $18.94a $0 $762,000 $762,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 40,229 N/A N/A $0 $762,000 $762,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 51,656 $0.00 $18.94a $0 $978,000 $978,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 51,656 N/A N/A $0 $978,000 $978,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. This figure represents the annualized cost of re-notification (a weighted average of $32.01 for basic 

re-notification and $45.15 for re-notification with data modifications—see the main text for details 

on the weighting). Approximately 64.8 percent of facilities are assumed to have basic renotification, while 35.2 percent of facilities are assumed to have at least one reason for 

modification to their re-notification submission. Applying these values as weights yields a weighted 

average cost of $36.64 incurred every other year. This represents $18.94 on an annualized basis 

(assuming the costs are incurred in even numbered years). 

Labeling/Marking

Current RCRA regulations require that LQGs and SQGs label containers with the words

“Hazardous Waste.” The proposed rule would expand this policy to require facilities to 

provide additional markings, including: (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other 

words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an 

indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste 

characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near 

drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous Waste” and use their 

inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first placed on the drip pad on in 

the containment building; (2) the contents of the waste; and (3) an indication of the 
3-16

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

associated hazards (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). This represents a 

cost for all LQGs and SQGs. 

This EA assumes that LQGs generally use a computerized labeling system or rely on an 

environmental services company to maintain a labeling/tracking database.47 Furthermore, 

it is assumed that all of the necessary information to be included on the label is already 

maintained in a database in the baseline and that the current labels used by LQGs are 

large enough to fit the additional information that must be included on labels under the 

proposed rule.48 Therefore, the one-time programming and testing costs to accommodate 

the new enhanced label format, which requires 10 hours of a programmers’ time, 

represents the only cost for LQGs.49 Using the hourly labor costs for programmers as 

presented in Exhibit 3-2, this represents an initial one-time cost of approximately $650.41 

per LQG to modify existing labels with the additional data elements. After incurring this 

initial cost, LQGs would realize no additional costs in subsequent years.

In contrast, this EA assumes that SQGs rely on a manual process rather than an 

automated system to label their containers. EPA estimates that it takes about 0.25 hours 

(or 15 minutes) of a technician’s time to apply labels to containers in a primary storage 

area.50 This cost is already incurred in the baseline. Based on label price information for 

two label suppliers this EA estimates that the average cost of a simple label containing 

the words “Hazardous Waste” is approximately $0.06 per label, while the average cost of 

a complex label with space for the additional data elements required under the rule is 

approximately $0.46 per label.51 Thus, the incremental cost of the complex label itself is 

approximately $0.40 per container (versus the simple label). Additionally, it is assumed 

to take about 0.08 hours (or 5 minutes) of a technician’s time per container to write the 

additional information on the label, which represents a cost of approximately $3.32 per 

container.52 

This cost would be applied to containers in SQGs’ primary accumulation areas, as well as 

their SAAs. As indicated in the assumptions section above, EPA estimates that SQGs use 

10 to 17 containers in their primary accumulation areas each year. The number of 

 

47 Based on personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 27, 2013. 

48 The determination that existing labels are sufficiently large for the additional information required on labels under the rule 

is based on a sample label provided by Tom Baker, Veolia ES Technical Solutions, personal communication June 27, 2013.

49 The estimate of 10 hours assumes that all the required information is already maintained in a facility’s labeling/tracking 

database. If these data are not already available, the one-time cost of building out a tracking database could be as high as 

$25,000 per facility. Based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on August 27, 2013.

50 EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, March 2011.

51 Average unit price of simple labels from JJ Keller and Label Master (ranging from $0.03 to $0.13 per label) based on 

purchase of 100-499 labels; Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label 

Master based on purchase of 100-499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and 

http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 2013.

52 Based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on June 27, 2013. 

Deleted: additional 
3-17

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

containers in SQGs’ SAAs (that are not simply moved to primary accumulation areas), 

however, is highly uncertain and likely to vary significantly across facilities. In the 

absence of information on containers in SAAs, this EA assumes that the number is half 

that in primary accumulation areas (or 5 to 8.5 containers). Based on this assumption, the 

cost per container for SQGs is applied to 15 to 26 containers per SQG. With a cost of 

$3.72 per container ($3.32 plus $0.40), this translates to additional labeling costs of $56 

to $95 per SQG. The requirements for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip 

pads or in containment buildings are slightly different in that these generators would use 

their inventory logs to comply with the labeling/marking provision. This EA assumes 

that the costs for these generators are similar to the costs for SQGs that accumulate 

hazardous waste in containers—approximately $56 to $95 per SQG per year. Unlike the 

system upgrade costs presented above for LQGs, these labeling/marking costs for SQGs 

represent an annual recurring cost incurred by SQGs.

Exhibit 3-7 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of labeling/marking 

containers by facility type. Costs are also broken out by one-time costs (i.e., first year 

only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs).
3-18

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-7: ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR LABELING/MARKING 

(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE )

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 $57.38a $0.00 $818,000 $0 $818,000

SQG 45,762 $0.00 $55.77b $0 $2,550,000 $2,550,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 60,024 N/A N/A $818,000 $2,550,000 $3,370,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 $57.38a $0.00 $818,000 $0 $818,000

SQG 59,702 $0.00 $94.81c $0 $5,660,000 $5,660,000

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 73,964 N/A N/A $818,000 $5,660,000 $6,480,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. This figure represents a first-year labor cost of $650.41 ($57.38 on an annualized basis) for 10 hours 

of a programmer’s time.

b. This figure represents an additional cost of $0.40 for a complex label (as opposed to a simple label) 

plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minutes of a technician’s time) per 55-gallon drum. This EA assumes 

that SQGs manage an average of 15 drums per year in the low impact scenario. The annualized cost 

of $55.77 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($37.18 per facility) 

and satellite accumulation areas ($18.59 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of

approximately $2.6 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($1.7 million) and SAAs 

($0.9 million). 

c. This figure represents an additional label cost of $0.40, plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minutes of a 

technician’s time) per 55-gallon drum. This EA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 26 drums 

per year in the high impact scenario. The annualized cost of $94.81 per facility is split between 

labeling in primary accumulation areas ($63.21 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($31.60

per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $5.7 million is divided 

between primary accumulation areas ($3.7 million) and SAAs ($1.9 million).

Closure

Under existing regulations, LQGs must comply with general closure provisions (§ 

265.111 and § 265.114), which require removing and decontaminating all contaminated 

equipment, structures, and soil to minimize the need for further maintenance and prevent 
3-19

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

post-closure release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment.53 LQGs 

storing or treating waste in tanks, drip pads, and containment buildings are also subject to 

closure requirements specific to these types of units. No such unit-specific requirements 

exist, however, for SAAs or CAAs. In addition, LQGs are not currently subject to 

closure notification or financial assurance requirements. The closure requirements for 

SQGs are less stringent than for LQGs in that SQGs are only subject to certain 

requirements for accumulating hazardous waste in tanks, while there are no specific 

requirements for SQGs managing hazardous waste in containers. There are no closure 

requirements for CESQGs. 

The proposed rule would strengthen the closure requirements for LQGs. Specifically, 

EPA proposes that if an LQG cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils in either a 

SAA or CAA can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the LQG must close 

the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post-closure care in accordance with the 

closure and post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310). In 

addition, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state 

agency at least 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such generators 

subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean closed or, if 

they cannot clean close, they have closed as a landfill. 

The costs of this provision depend on four factors. First, for all LQGs that close, this 

provision’s costs depend on the cost of notifying EPA of a closure. Then, for LQGs that 

close CAAs or SAAs and cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils in these areas can 

be practicably removed or decontaminated, the costs of this provision also depend on (1) 

the average number of LQGs with CAAs or SAAs that close annually, (2) the percentage 

of these facilities that would be required to close as a landfill, and (3) the per-facility cost

of closing as a landfill. This EA’s approach for estimating the costs of these items is as 

follows: 

Cost of Notifying EPA of a Closure: All LQGs that close will incur costs associated with 

the proposed rule’s notification requirements for LQGs. Consistent with the unit costs 

presented above for re-notification, the cost per notification is estimated to be $45.15 per 

facility. For two notifications (one 30 days prior to notification and another no later than 

90 days following closure), this cost increases to $90.30 per LQG that closes.

Average number of LQG closures per year: Because EPA does not currently require 

notification for LQG closures, comprehensive data on the number of closures occurring 

each year are not available. EPA contacted several states to determine if any possess data 

on LQG closures, and the only state in possession of such data was Connecticut. 

Although Connecticut does not currently require facilities to submit notification of 

closure, the State maintains data on changes in generator status dating back to 1996 that 

 

53 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Introduction to Generators (40 CFR Part 262), September 2005.
3-20

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

were used to estimate the number of closures.54 A status change is documented when a 

hazardous waste generator with an EPA ID number informs the State that it is changing 

its generator status, for example, from LQG to SQG or SQG to CESQG. A change in 

generator status from LQG, SQG, or CESQG to non-handler is considered a closure. For 

closures, Connecticut requires hazardous waste generators to confirm on a status change 

application form that they closed any storage areas that they ceased using in accordance 

with the state closure requirements. 

In addition to tracking LQG generator status changes, Connecticut also documented the 

number of SQGs that changed their generator status to CESQG and the number of SQGs 

and CESQGs that changed their generator status to non-handler. Virtually all of the 

CESQGs that have EPA ID numbers were formerly LQGs or SQGs. Exhibit 3-8 reports 

the number of generator status changes and closures in Connecticut between 1996 and 

2012. Over this time period, Connecticut had a total generator universe of approximately 

400 LQGs, 1,700 SQGs, and 2,800 CESQGs.55

 

54 Personal communication with Ross Bunnell of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on 

March 15, 2013.

55 Ibid.
3-21

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-8: CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES 

AND CLOSURES FROM 19 96 TO 2012

ORIGINAL STATUS ENDING STATUS NUMBER OF STATUS CHANGES

LQG SQG 199

LQG CESQG 87

LQG Non-Handler 152

SQG CESQG 141

SQG Non-Handler 231

CESQG Non-Handler 29

TOTAL GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES 839

TOTAL CLOSURES 412

AVERAGE CLOSURES PER YEAR (all generators) 24.2

AVERAGE LQG CLOSURES PER YEAR 8.9

As shown in the exhibit, Connecticut had 152 LQG closures (approximately 9 per year) 

between 1996 and 2012. This represents an annual LQG closure rate of approximately 2.2 

percent. Applying this to the 14,262 LQGs in the regulated universe, this EA estimates 

approximately 319 LQG closures on an annual basis.

Percent of LQGs Closing as a Landfill: As noted above, the proposed requirement for 

closing an LQG as a landfill (i.e., with contamination in place) would apply only to LQGs 

that are unable to remove or decontaminate contaminated soils from their accumulation 

areas. Data on the number of closures that would meet this criterion are unavailable. In 

addition, enforcement personnel contacted in state agencies that implement RCRA are 

unaware of any LQGs that closed without decontaminating their accumulation areas and 

suspect that such an occurrence is exceedingly rare. Based on this input and the lack of 

data on closure with contamination in place, this EA assumes that between zero and one 

percent of LQGs close with contamination in place in their accumulation areas. 

Applying this range to the estimates 319 LQG closures per year, this EA estimates 

between zero and three LQGs would close as a landfill each year under the proposed rule.

Additional Costs of Closing as a Landfill: The additional cost of an LQG closing its 

accumulation area(s) as a landfill is uncertain, as EPA is unaware of any documented 

cases of LQGs closing with contamination remaining in their accumulation area(s). For 

the purposes of estimating these costs, this EA assumes that an LQG would need to 

demolish its concrete floor and stabilize it for disposal, install a new concrete floor, and 

conduct groundwater monitoring near the facility. EPA estimated each of these costs 
3-22

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

using 2010 Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software as 

follows:56

 Demolition of Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of demolishing concrete 

flooring is approximately $793 per facility. 

 Floor Disposal: The estimated cost of floor disposal, including transportation, is 

approximately $2,615 per facility.

 New Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of laying a new concrete floor is 

approximately $3,219 per facility.

 Groundwater Monitoring (installation): For each LQG closing as a landfill, this 

EA assumes that three monitoring wells would be drilled near each facility: two 

downslope and one in the immediate vicinity of the facility. The cost of drilling 

monitoring wells varies, based largely on well depth. Under the conservative 

assumption that a deep well would be necessary for each site, this EA applies an 

installation cost of approximately $16,226 per well,57 plus professional labor 

management costs of approximately $9,784 and design costs of approximately 

$2,212, which translates to total well installation costs of $60,674 per LQG 

closing as a landfill. 

 Groundwater Monitoring (sampling): Sampling of the three wells drilled near 

each site is assumed to occur semi-annually, consistent with the minimum 

required under RCRA.58 The cost per semi-annual sampling for all three wells 

combined is an estimated $16,983 per year. However, the first year sampling 

costs are estimated to be higher due to the initial design and development of the 

monitoring systems and the benchmark establishment of recordkeeping and other 

requirements. Therefore, the increased cost of first year sampling is estimated to 

be $26,820 in addition to the regular annual sampling cost of $16,983. As 

required under RCRA, monitoring is expected to continue for 30 years after 

closure. To capture this recurring cost, this EA estimates the present value of 

monitoring for each LQG closing as a landfill. Based on a discount rate of three 

percent, this value is $369,684. With a discount rate of seven percent, this value 

declines to $252,317 per LQG closing as a landfill.

Combining these various cost elements for LQGs closing as a landfill, this EA estimates 

costs of approximately $319,618 (using a seven percent discount rate) for every LQG that 

closes as a landfill.

 

56 RACER estimates provided by Phuc Phan of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 24, 2013. 

RACER costs are estimated in 2010 dollars and inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars using the GDP implicit-price deflator. 

57 Value reflects a well depth of 110 feet. By comparison, a 25-foot well would cost approximately $6,860 to drill.

58 U.S. EPA, Groundwater Monitoring Requirements for Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/td/ldu/financial/gdwater.htm, last updated December 20, 2012.
3-23

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Exhibit 3-9 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of closure, including 

costs associated with the failure to clean close, by facility type. While closure 

notification and most closure activities—with the exception of groundwater monitoring—

are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs of the 

proposed rule because a percentage of the LQG universe is expected to close each year.

EXHIBIT 3-9: ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR CLOSURE 

(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DI SCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]a

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 319 (0) $0.00 $90.31b $0 $28,800 $28,800

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 319 (0) N/A N/A $0 $28,800 $28,800

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]a

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 319 (3) $0.00 $3,096c $0 $988,000 $988,000

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 319 (3) N/A N/A $0 $988,000 $988,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. This EA assumes 319 LQGs close each year. The values in parentheses in this column represent the 

estimated number of LQGs that cannot clean close. The low impact scenario assumes that zero 

facilities fail to clean close, while the high impact scenario assumes that three facilities fail to 

clean close each year. 

b. This figure reflects the cost ($45.15 each) of writing and submitting two closure notifications (30-

days prior to closure and within 90 days following closure) per facility to a Regional Administrator.

c. This figure reflects multiple costs, including two closure notifications per facility (as described in 

note b above), and is reported as a weighted average across all affected facilities—including those 

that are able to clean close and those that are not. For facilities that fail to clean close, it includes 

the following costs: (1) concrete floor demolition, $793; (2) floor stabilization and disposal, $2,615; 

(3) laying a new concrete floor, $3,219; (4) installation of three groundwater monitoring wells, 

$60,674 = $9,784 labor + $2,212 design + $16,226 installation per well × 3 wells; and (5) the present 

discounted value of groundwater monitoring for 30 years, $252,317. Based on these values, the cost 

per facility that clean closes is $90.31 and the cost per facility that does not clean close is 

$319,618. Therefore, the total annualized costs are calculated as follows: (319 × $90.31) + (3 × 

$319,618) = $987,663, which translates to an average per facility cost of approximately $3,096.
3-24

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Emergency Response Preparedness

Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency 

response, LQGs and SQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local 

response agencies, and update the plan as needed. Under the proposed rule, LQGs and 

SQGs will also be required to maintain records documenting these arrangements with 

local emergency responders. This documentation must include a certified letter or any 

other documentation that confirms such arrangements actively exist. Most LQGs and 

SQGs are likely to have active arrangements with local authorities and will only incur 

costs to document these arrangements. While under existing regulations hazardous waste 

generators could document instances in which State or local authorities declined to enter 

in such arrangements, under the proposed rule facilities must ensure such arrangements 

exist. Currently, EPA estimates that 10 percent of facilities have failed to make 

arrangements with local emergency responders.59 These facilities are compliant with 

existing regulations by documenting in their operating record where State or local 

authorities have declined to enter into such arrangements, but will no longer be in 

compliance under the proposed rule.

Requirements for Existing LQGs and SQGs. In the first year after the promulgation of 

the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that do not have arrangements with local emergency 

responders would have to submit a copy of their contingency plan to their local 

emergency management authorities and all LQGs and SQGs would have to document 

such arrangements. EPA estimates it would take about 10 minutes (or 0.16 hours) of 

administrative time to re-submit a plan that satisfies all of the requirements of the local 

emergency management authorities for approval.60 EPA also estimates it would take all 

LQGs and SQGs about 6 minutes (or 0.1 hours) of administrative time to document 

active arrangements with local emergency responders.61 Therefore, the average one-time 

labor cost for a facility without existing arrangements would be $5.47 and the average 

labor cost for a facility with existing arrangements would be $2.10. 

Requirements for New LQGs. In addition, the proposed rule would require all new LQGs 

to submit an executive summary of their contingency plan to emergency management 

authorities to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an 

emergency. The cost to prepare a stand-alone executive summary is estimated as a range. 

For the high end of the range, EPA assumes that the cost of developing the executive 

summary is similar to the annual cost to review and update a facility’s contingency plan. 

EPA assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager’s time to perform these 

activities and 0.16 hours (or about 10 minutes) of an office clerk’s time to submit the plan 

 

59 Personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on April 1, 2015.

60 EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 1573.13, Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, 

and Special Permits", February 2013.

61 Based on information from EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 0820.11 Hazardous Waste 

Generator Standards (Renewal), March 2011.
3-25

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

to the emergency management authority.62 Based on the labor cost values in Exhibit 3-2, 

these labor hour estimates translate to a cost of approximately $336 per executive 

summary. For the low end cost estimate, this EA assumes that LQGs would use the draft 

template that EPA released with today’s rule to copy and paste information from their 

more detailed contingency plan. This process is assumed to reduce the time burden on 

managers from four to two hours, which reduces the cost per LQG to approximately 

$171. Thus, the total cost of preparing an executive summary represents an initial onetime cost ranging from $171 to $336 for every new LQG. This estimate includes 

recordkeeping costs for maintaining documentation of these arrangements. 

Requirements for New SQGs. Under the proposed rule, new SQGs would have to 

document their arrangements with emergency management authorities and would incur 

one-time costs similar to facilities with existing arrangements. New facilities entering 

into the SQG universe are already required to attempt to make arrangements with local 

emergency responders; therefore, they would not incur additional costs relative to the 

baseline beyond documenting these arrangements. SQGs would not be required to 

develop a separate executive summary of their contingency plan.

This EA estimates the annual number of new LQGs using EPA’s RCRAInfo database to 

identify facilities that: (1) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form 

as an LQG to obtain an EPA ID number; (2) submitted a subsequent RCRA Subtitle C 

Site Identification Form to change a facility’s generator status from CESQG or SQG to 

LQG; or (3) submitted a BR Hazardous Waste Report Form to change a facility’s 

generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG. Using data from 2000 to 2013, EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 2,350 new facilities entering into the LQG 

universe every year.63,64 Using a similar approach, this EA estimates the annual number 

of new SQGs based on initial notifications and changes in generator status from CESQG 

to SQG. EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,610 new facilities entering into the 

SQG universe each year.65

 

62 EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 1573.13, Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, 

and Special Permits", February 2013.

63 The results are similar if data from 1980 to 2013 are used. However, in the 1980s, there were slightly more initial RCRA 

Subtitle C notifications and slightly less changes in facility generator status relative to the 1990s and 2000s. Overall, on an 

annual basis, the number of new LQGs is similar (within 10 percent) if the additional years of data from 1980 to 1999 are 

included.

64 Of these, approximately 990 facilities (or 42 percent) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Identification Form as an LQG 

and approximately 1,360 (or 58 percent) notified EPA of a change in their generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG each 

year. A facility may be counted more than once if it is initially reported as an SQG, subsequently re-notifies as an LQG, 

then submits a BR report as an SQG, and then later submits a BR report as an LQG. Excluding records for facilities that 

become “new” LQGs more than once (i.e., only counting initial changes), there are approximately 2,190 new LQGs each 

year. This represents a seven percent decrease in the number of new LQGs.

65 Of these, approximately 1,430 facilities (or 55 percent) submitted initial notifications and approximately 1,180 (or 45 

percent) changed their generator status from CESQG to SQG.
3-26

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Exhibit 3-10 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs for this provision of the 

rule by facility type. The exhibit reports one-time costs for existing facilities and 

recurring costs for the segment of the regulated universe consisting of new LQGs and 

SQGs each year. While emergency response preparedness costs are one-time costs on a 

per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the 

regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the LQG and SQG 

universe each year.
3-27

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-10: ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE PREPAREDNES S (ANNUALIZED OVER 2 0 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTSa

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTSb

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTSc

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 (2,353) $0.22 $170.60d $3,070 $401,000 $404,000

SQG 45,762 (2,610) $0.22 $2.10 $9,850 $5,490 $15,300

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 60,024 N/A N/A $12,900 $407,000 $420,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTSa

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTSb

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTSc

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 (2,353) $0.22 $335.73e $3,070 $790,000 $793,000

SQG 59,702 (2,610) $0.22 $2.10 $12,900 $5,490 $18,300

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 73,964 N/A N/A $15,900 $795,000 $811,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of existing facilities that would have to 

document their arrangements with emergency responders in the first year after the rule’s 

implementation; the value in parentheses represents the estimated number of new facilities each 

year.

b. The one-time costs represent a weighted-average first-year cost of $2.10 for 90 percent of LQGs and 

SQGs with existing arrangements and $5.47 for 10 percent LQGs and SQGs without existing 

arrangements. Thus, the weighted-average one-time cost is $2.44 per facility ($0.22 on an 

annualized basis).

c. The recurring costs for LQGs vary by scenario and are described in detail below. The recurring costs 

for SQGs are identical to the first-year costs for facilities with existing arrangements with emergency 

responders. While these are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring 

costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the 

SQG universe each year.

d. The low impact scenario assumes it takes approximately two hours of a manager’s time and ten 

minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summary to the local emergency 

management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician’s time to 

document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $170.60 per LQG.

e. The high impact scenario assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager’s time and ten 

minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summary to the local emergency 

management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician’s time to 

document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $335.73 per LQG.
3-28

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Transfer Faciltiy Requirements

The proposed rule would change the labeling/marking requirements for transporters 

storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed 

requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored at these facilities must be 

marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents 

of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a 

container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).

While this provision would require transfer facilities to label all hazardous wastes that 

they receive, the proposed rule’s labeling/marking requirements, as outlined above, 

would assure that all hazardous wastes that transfer facilities receive from SQGs and 

LQGs meet these labeling requirements. Thus, transfer facilities would incur additional 

costs under this provision only for waste received from CESQGs, which are not otherwise 

required to comply with the labeling/marking provision of the proposed rule.

Based on the above, the costs that transfer facilities incur depend on the number of 

CESQGs that send their waste to transfer facilities and the labeling costs associated with 

each of these CESQGs’ wastes. As an initial step in estimating the number of CESQGs 

in the regulated universe that send their hazardous waste to transfer facilities, this EA 

assumes that the CESQGs engaged in this practice would include a subset of (1) those 

CESQGs located in states that do not allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste as 

MSW and (2) those CESQGs located in other states (i.e., states that allow CESQGs to 

dispose of hazardous waste in MSW landfills), but that choose to manage their hazardous 

waste at a permitted TSDF. Industry and state agency data suggest that 32 states and the 

District of Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through 

MSW landfill disposal.66 These states are estimated to account for 146,300 to 204,300 

CESQGs. Of the CESQGs in the remaining states, this EA assumes that 10 percent 

manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF, bringing the total number of CESQGs 

managing their hazardous waste at a TSDF to 161,000 to 230,800 facilities.67 Of these 

CESQGs, this EA estimates that approximately 16 percent send their hazardous waste to 

a transfer facility, consistent with the percentage of SQGs in the 2011 BR database that 

send their waste to such a facility. In the absence of data specific to CESQGs, the SQG 

percentage is assumed to apply to CESQGs as well. Based on this assumption, an 

estimated 25,800 to 36,900 CESQGs send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility each 

year.

 

66 White, M., Health and Safety Annex CESQGs, WAAC Newsletter, September 1998, Volume 20, Number 3, accessed at 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn/wn20/wn20-3/wn20-306.html on July 10, 2013 and Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality, Overview of Regulatory Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators in Arkansas, accessed at 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_ie/hwgen.htm on July 10, 2013.

67 This 10 percent figure is based on professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013.
3-29

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EPA estimates that there are 325 transfer facilities nationwide.68 These facilities are a 

subset of generators in the regulated universe because they may consolidate hazardous 

waste and are therefore subject to the same requirements as generators. According to 

2011 BR data, 317 of these facilities (approximately 98 percent) are LQGs and the 

remaining 8 facilities are evenly split between SQGs and CESQGs. The transfer facility 

costs associated with complying with the requirements for new consolidated wastes are 

already incurred in the baseline. Therefore, the only incremental cost of complying with 

the proposed rule is the labeling of hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs. 

Based on the number of CESQGs and the number of transfer facilities in the regulated 

universe, transfer facilities manage waste for between 80 and 110 CESQGs each, on 

average.

The cost of labeling hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs is estimated to 

be $7.44 to $14.87 per CESQG per year (with an average of two to four 55-gallon drums 

per CESQG), which includes two factors :

69 (1) an additional five minutes of a 

technician’s time to write the required information on each container,

70 and (2) an 

incremental label cost of $0.40 per container (i.e., the difference between a complex label 

that costs $0.46 and a simple label that costs $0.06).

71

 CESQGs are already required to 

apply simple labels with the words “hazardous waste” to all containers sent to a TSDF in 

the baseline. The costs of this provision represent labeling costs above and beyond those 

incurred in the baseline.

Exhibit 3-11 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of enhanced labeling under 

the transfer facility requirements of the proposed rule by facility type. The estimated cost 

per transfer facility to comply with the additional marking and labeling requirements 

ranges from $590 to $1,690 per year.

 

68 The number of transfer facilities is based on an EPA analysis of 2011 BR data, which was provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on July 2, 2014.

69 These costs for CESQG labeling are also presented below in the discussion of the proposed rule’s intra-organization transfer 

provision. This EA conservatively assumes there is no overlap between CESQGs that send their waste to a transfer facility 

and those that would voluntarily consolidate their waste with an LQG.

70 Labor estimate of five minutes based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on June 

27, 2013.

71 Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label Master based on purchase 

of 100-499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 

2013. 
3-30

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-11: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR TRANSFER FACILITY 

REQUIREMENTS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTSa

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 317 $0.00 $589 $0 $187,000 $187,000

SQG 4 $0.00 $589 $0 $2,360 $2,360

CESQG 4 $0.00 $589 $0 $2,360 $2,360

TOTAL 325 N/A N/A $0 $192,000 $192,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTSa

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 317 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $536,000 $536,000

SQG 4 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $6,760 $6,760

CESQG 4 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $6,760 $6,760

TOTAL 325 N/A N/A $0 $549,000 $549,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. This figure represents the cost of labeling containers (with an average of two to four 55-gallon 

drums per CESQG), which includes two factors: (1) an additional 5 minutes of a technician’s time to 

write the required information on each container; and (2) an incremental label cost of $0.40 per 

container (i.e., the difference between a complex label that costs $0.46 for a complex label and a 

simple label that costs $0.06)

BR Requirements

The proposed rule would make two substantive changes to the biennial reporting 

requirements for LQGs. First, it would require LQGs to report all of the hazardous waste 

that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just quantities for the month(s) during 

which they were LQGs. Existing regulation is unclear on this issue and a limited number 

of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for 

only those months that they were LQGs. Second, the rule would require LQGs to report 

all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste 

was transported off-site during the reporting year. Although the current BR instructions 

state that generators should report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during 

the reporting year, Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a facility 
3-31

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

generates hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off-site during the next 

calendar year.

Report for all waste generated, regardless of when it was managed. As described earlier 

in this chapter, the 2011 BR data suggest that LQGs, on average, manage between five 

and 17 hazardous waste streams each year (and prepare a separate GM form for each 

waste stream).72 Anecdotal accounts suggest that the BR data may under represent the 

true number of waste streams generated because many facilities only report those waste 

streams generated and managed in the BR reporting year.

Limited information is available on the amount of hazardous waste generated but not 

transported off-site during the reporting year. In the absence of such data, this EA 

assumes that, on average, no more than one-quarter (25 percent) of an LQG’s total 

hazardous waste (all hazardous waste generated between the months of October and 

December) could be stored on-site and not transported off-site or managed on-site until 

the following calendar year. This assumption is based on the current RCRA storage 

requirements allowing LQGs to accumulate hazardous waste on site for up to 90 days. 

As corroboration for this assumption, data collected from the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality’s Hazardous Waste Annual Reports suggest that approximately 76 

percent of the hazardous waste managed by facilities each year is generated in the same 

calendar year and approximately 24 percent is kept in accumulation areas for treatment or 

transportation off-site in a different calendar year.73

Applying the 25 percent assumption to the five to 17 waste streams reported per LQG in 

the BR, this EA estimates the BR reporting costs for an additional two to six waste 

streams. As described above, EPA estimates that the cost burden to prepare each GM 

form is approximately $19.99, which reflects 0.14 hours of a manager’s time, 0.18 hours 

or a technician’s time, and 0.06 hours of an office clerk’s time.74 Based on this cost, the 

additional BR costs per LQG are between $39.98 and $119.93. These costs are incurred 

every other year.

Report for all months that a facility is an LQG. As noted above, EPA is proposing that 

facilities qualifying for LQG status for part of the year report their waste generation for 

the full year. Anecdotal accounts suggest that LQGs in some states complete biennial 

reports only for the months during which they cross the LQG threshold during the year. 

In addition, in a survey of 26 states, three states reported that they did not require onetime or short-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate for the 

 

72 The GM Form is part of EPA’s Biennial Report used for reporting on-site hazardous waste generation, management, and offsite shipment. U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, RCRAInfo File Specification Guide: 2011 Hazardous 

waste Report Submissions, November 2011.

73 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Hazardous Waste Generator Annual Reports 2001-2012, accessed at 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmt-remediation/hazardous-waste/hazardous-waste-reporting.aspx on March 5, 2013.

74 EPA ICR 0976.16 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste 

Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.
3-32

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

entire calendar year. 75 Idaho and West Virginia reported that they required these 

facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated only for the months they 

were LQGs. South Carolina reported that it required facilities to report the amount of 

hazardous waste they generated for the remainder of the calendar year after they exceeded 

the monthly LQG generation threshold.

Limited information is available on episodic generation in these states. Overall, there are 

374 LQGs in these states, between 844 and 1,187 SQGs, and between 5,428 and 11,120 

CESQGs. For the 374 LQGs, the costs of the rule are estimated as a range. The low end 

of the range assumes that these facilities report for two months of the year in the baseline 

and that their baseline reporting covers all of their waste streams, but underreports 

generation for those waste streams. Therefore, for the low scenario, the cost for these 

facilities is the cost to gather additional information on the existing waste streams. This 

cost is estimated to be $20 per facility.76 The high end assumes that the number of waste 

streams that these facilities report in the baseline covers two months of the year and that 

this temporal coverage is proportional to the number of waste streams reported in the 

baseline. Thus, if the mean number of waste streams generated by LQGs is 17, this EA 

assumes that three are reported in the baseline and 14 are newly reported under the rule, 

at a cost of $19.99 per waste stream.

This requirement of the rule would also affect CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs in 

these three states. Data from EPA’s RCRAInfo database suggest that nationwide 1.4 to 

1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.1 to 0.2 percent of CESQGs each year notify EPA of a change 

in their generator status to LQG (i.e., submitting BR records as an LQG when they were 

previously an CESQG or SQG).77 Applying this to the number of SQGs and CESQGs in 

West Virginia, Idaho, and South Carolina, this EA estimates that the three states 

combined are home to 12 to 22 SQG episodic generators and 6 to 20 CESQG episodic 

generators. This EA conservatively assumes that all these episodic generators have just 

one month-long episodic event each year that exceeds the monthly LQG generation 

threshold. Furthermore, these facilities are assumed to submit BR reports for one to two 

waste streams in the baseline (1/12 of the baseline values of five and 17 for LQGs). 

Therefore, the cost of BR reporting for SQGs and CESQGs that are episodic generators in 

these states is the time and materials to prepare an additional GM form for each of the 

unreported waste streams, between 4 and 15 per facility—approximately $80 to $300 per 

facility per reporting year.

Exhibit 3-12 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of BR reporting under the 

proposed rule by facility type. All of the reported costs are incurred on a biennial basis in 

 

75 EPA, ASTSWMO Survey Responses, March 2012, provided by Jim O'Leary of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery on August 26, 2013.

76 Estimate derived from EPA ICR 801.18 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste Management Facilities Under 

the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System January 2012.

77 Based on analysis of EPA’s RCRAInfo database from 2000 to 2013. 
3-33

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

even-numbered years. Therefore, there are no one-time costs associated with this 

provision of the rule.

EXHIBIT 3-12: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS F OR BR REQUIREMENTS 

(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 $0.00 $20.94a $0 $299,000 $299,000

SQG 12 $0.00 $41.33b $0 $496 $496

CESQG 6 $0.00 $41.33b $0 $248 $248

TOTAL 14,280 N/A N/A $0 $299,000 $299,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 14,262 $0.00 $66.06a $0 $942,000 $942,000

SQG 22 $0.00 $154.98b $0 $3,410 $3,410

CESQG 20 $0.00 $154.98b $0 $3,100 $3,100

TOTAL 14,304 N/A N/A $0 $949,000 $949,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. This figure represents the sum of the following costs: (1) labor costs of $19.99 per GM form × 2 

additional GM forms per facility in the low impact scenario, which equals $39.98 incurred on a 

biennial basis in even numbered years (or 6 additional GM forms per facility in the high impact 

scenario) and (2) labor costs totaling $20.18 per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years 

for data collection for 374 LQGs in States that require short-term LQGs to report the amount of 

hazardous waste they generate only for the months they are LQGs. In annualized terms, the $39.98 

in biennial costs represents annualized costs of $20.66 and the $20.18 in biennial costs represents 

annualized costs of $10.43. The $10.43, however, is incurred by only 374 LQGs (2.6 percent of 

LQGs); averaging this over all 14,262 LQGs yields a per facility cost of $0.27. Adding this value to 

the $20.66 presented above yields $20.94 in annualized costs.

b. This figure represents a labor cost of $19.99 per GM form ($10.33 on an annualized basis) × 4 

additional GM forms per SQG and CESQG in the low impact scenario (or 15 additional GM forms in 

the high impact scenario). These costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.

Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted Waste

Consistent with the proposed labeling/marking requirements for LQGs and SQGs, the 

proposed rule would require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land 
3-34

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify 

the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the 

hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).

Waste subject to the requirements of this provision would most likely be in compliance 

due to the labeling/marking and transfer facility requirements outlined above. This EA 

therefore estimates no additional costs for this provision.

Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements

Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for 

LQGs subject to 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts W and DD to also apply to SQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less

without a permit or interim status. Although there are no explicit requirements for SQGs, 

EPA intended for SQGs to comply with all of the LQG conditions for an exemption

associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste, as well as any associated

independent requirements for LQGs or else obtain a Part B permit for their drip pads or 

containment buildings. While SQGs may normally accumulate hazardous waste in 

primary accumulation areas or SAAs for 180 days, the maximum generator accumulation 

time period for drip pads or containment buildings is 90 days.

78 The current regulations 

also imply that generators using drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the 

requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, emergency response 

preparedness, and biennial reporting. In contrast, if an SQG accumulates hazardous 

waste in containers, it can comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs,

including accumulation of hazardous waste for up to 180 days.

79

Under the proposed rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to 

require SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings 

to comply with the LQG 90-day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day 

accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for 

SQGs. Only hazardous waste that is accumulated on drip pads or in containment 

buildings must be managed in compliance with the LQG accumulation limits. 

EPA estimates that there are 12 SQGs and 22 LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on 

drip pads or in containment buildings.80 Under the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings must comply with 

the labeling requirements described in the previous section on labeling/marking. The 

costs associated with this requirement are reported above and are not repeated here to 

 

78 U.S. EPA, “Introduction to Drip Pads (40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart W)”, RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Call Center Training 

Module, EPA-530-K-02-0081, October 2001, page 7.

79 U.S. EPA, “Wood Preserving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Compliance Guide—A Guide to Federal Environmental 

Regulation,” EPA-305-B-96-001, June 1996, Section 5-8.

80 Based on personal communication with Jim O’Leary and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

on May 6, 2015.
3-35

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

avoid double-counting. Under the existing regulations, LQGs and SQGs that use drip 

pads or containment buildings are required to conduct weekly inspections, which are 

assumed to required 1 hour of a technician’s time, per week, at a total annualized cost of 

$2,070 per facility. The proposed rule also requires LQGs and SQGs to continue to use 

their existing log book to document the results of these inspections. Documenting these 

inspections is estimated to take a few minutes, and represents just a fraction of the weekly 

inspection costs (an annualized cost of approximately $200 per facility). However, many 

states currently require LQGs and SQGs to maintain records of their drip pad inspections. 

EPA estimates that most generators are located in states that require them to maintain 

records of their weekly inspections or they voluntarily do so. Thus, under the proposed 

rule, the incremental costs associated with the requirements for accumulating hazardous 

waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are estimated to be minimal. 

Furthermore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment 

buildings would realize a net cost savings, as described in the discussion of benefits in 

Chapter 4.

Intra -organiz ational Transfers (Voluntary)

To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, the proposed rule would allow CESQGs to send 

their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided 

that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions. The CESQG 

conditions are as follows:

(a) A participating CESQG must label containers with the words “CESQG 

Hazardous Waste,” other words that identify the contents of the containers, and 

an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable 

hazardous waste characteristic). 

(b) CESQGs must comply with all applicable DOT regulations when sending their 

hazardous waste to an LQG. 

The proposed conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more CESQGs 

under the same organizational structure include the following:

(a) LQGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying the 

names, addresses, and contact information for the CESQGs that will be 

transferring hazardous waste to the LQG.

(b) LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from CESQGs that 

include the name, address, and contact information for each CESQG, as well as a 

description (i.e., quantity and hazardous waste codes) of each waste shipment 

received.

(c) LQGs mark shipments from CESQGs with the date the hazardous waste was 

received from the CESQG.

(d) LQGs would be required to manage all incoming CESQG hazardous waste in 

compliance with the regulations applicable to their LQG status.
3-36

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

(e) Hazardous waste received from CESQGs would need to be included in the 

receiving LQG’s BR submissions. 

Estimating the costs associated with this portion of the proposed rule requires information 

on (1) the number of CESQGs that may consolidate to an LQG and the number of LQGs 

that may receive CESQG waste, (2) the per facility costs for affected CESQGs, and (3) 

the per facility costs for LQGs receiving CESQG waste. 

Number of CESQGs and LQGs opting for this rule provision: The number of entities 

that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this portion of the proposed rule is 

uncertain. The sources of this uncertainty include the lack of information indicating the 

extent to which eligible facilities will take advantage of this rule provision and the limited 

data available on the number of CESQGs that are eligible (i.e., are owned by 

organizations that also own at least one LQG). With respect to the former, the CESQGs 

that take advantage of this rule provision may be split into two groups:

1. CESQGs in states that allow MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste: 

As indicated in the discussion regarding the proposed rule’s transfer facility 

provision, industry and state data suggest that 32 states and the District of 

Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through 

MSW landfill disposal.81 Facilities in these states are estimated to account for 

between 50 and 56 percent of the potentially affected universe of CESQGs, or 

146,600 to 265,000 CESQGs. This EA assumes that 90 percent of the CESQGs 

in these states dispose of their hazardous waste as MSW and that 10 percent send 

their hazardous waste to a permitted TSDF.82 The CESQG facilities that dispose 

of their hazardous waste in MSW landfills are assumed to continue to manage 

their hazardous waste as MSW (and not consolidate their waste through LQGs 

owned by the same organization) because of the relatively low cost of this 

disposal option. Of the remaining 14,700 to 26,500 CESQGs that are located in 

states that allow the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste, but 

choose to send their waste to a TSDF, this EA assumes that CESQGs owned by 

organizations that also own LQGs consolidate their waste to an LQG.

2. CESQGs in states that prohibit MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous 

waste: In states that prohibit the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous 

waste, all CESQGs owned by organizations that also own one or more LQGs are 

assumed to consolidate their CESQG hazardous waste to an LQG. These states 

account for an estimated 146,300 to 204,300 CESQGs.

 

81 White, M., Health and Safety Annex CESQGs, WAAC Newsletter, September 1998, Volume 20, Number 3, accessed at 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn/wn20/wn20-3/wn20-306.html on July 10, 2013 and Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality, Overview of Regulatory Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators in Arkansas, accessed at 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_ie/hwgen.htm on July 10, 2013.

82 This 10 percent figure is based on professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013.
3-37

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Combined, these two groups represent 161,000 to 230,800 CESQGs.

To estimate the percentage of CESQGs owned by companies that also own at least one 

LQG, this EA relies on facility-level data collected from Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Each of these states provided the name, 

address, and generator status of active hazardous waste generators within their borders, 

but lacked information on the ownership structure of facilities. Absent this ownership 

information, a matching algorithm based on facility names was used to identify the 

ultimate owner. First, generators in each state that had the same organization name were 

identified. Then, organizations owning multiple generators (including at least one 

CESQG facility and one LQG facility) within the same state were identified. For 

bordering states (i.e., Maine-Massachusetts-New Hampshire), facilities located in 

adjacent states were also included in the analysis. Three of the states analyzed (Florida, 

New Hampshire, and Oregon) allow CESQGs to dispose of waste in MSW landfills. For 

these states, 90 percent of all CESQGs are assumed to use MSW disposal and 10 percent 

are assumed to send waste to a TSDF. For the other three states, all CESQGs are 

assumed to send waste to a TSDF. Furthermore, for all states, CESQGs that are part of a 

larger organization are assumed to manage their waste at a TSDF. Finally, we divide the 

number of CESQGs that are part of a larger organization that could potentially 

consolidate waste by the number of CESQGs that send waste to a TSDF in the baseline. 

This EA then applies this percentage to the total number of CESQGs nationwide that send 

waste to a TSDF. 

The limitations of this approach are: (1) some states did not have information on the 

generator status of all facilities (e.g., Massachusetts only reported generator status for 

approximately 80 percent of facilities); (2) facility names do not necessarily identify the 

ultimate owner, therefore it is difficult to determine whether generators are owned by the 

same organization; and (3) the states used to estimate the percentage of CESQGs that 

could consolidate their waste may not be representative of other states in the U.S. 

Based on this review of the state data, an estimated 9.7 percent of CESQGs that manage 

their waste at TSDFs are part of an organization that owns multiple generators (including 

at least one LQG) in the same state or a bordering state. Similarly, LQGs that are part of 

an organization that owns multiple generators (including at least one CESQG) in the 

same or a bordering state—and could potentially serve as a consolidation facility—

account for approximately 33.7 percent of all LQGs. Therefore, this EA estimates that 

between 15,626 and 22,411 CESQGs could potentially manage their waste through 

consolidation with an LQG facility owned by the same organization and approximately 

2,410 LQGs could potentially act as consolidators.83 Thus, on average, each LQG could 

 

83 The CESQG range is based on 9.7 percent of the estimated 161,000 to 230,800 CESQGs in (1) states that prohibit CESQGs 

from disposing of their hazardous waste in a MSW disposal facility and (2) the proportion of CESQGs in other states that 

manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF. The LQG value represents 33.7 percent of the 7,100 LQGs in those states. Values 

may not match exactly due to rounding.
3-38

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

potentially consolidate waste for between approximately six and nine CESQGs. The 

facility-level costs of intra-organizational consolidation are described below.

CESQG costs per facility: Under the requirements of the rule, CESQGs will incur two 

specific costs if they send their hazardous waste to an LQG owned by the same 

organization: (1) costs associated with labeling their containers consistent with the 

requirements outlined above and (2) costs related to transporting their hazardous waste to 

an LQG. CESQGs are required to apply simple labels with the words “hazardous waste” 

to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline. The labeling costs described above 

represent the incremental cost above and beyond the current RCRA requirements for 

CESQGs in the baseline. Based on the average quantity of waste and number of waste 

streams per CESQG presented in Chapter 2 this EA estimates that the average CESQG 

generates between two and four 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste per year. Consistent 

with the CESQG labeling costs presented above for the proposed rule’s transfer facility 

provision, the cost of labeling each drum in compliance with the rule’s requirements is 

approximately $0.46 per 55-gallon drum for the label itself (versus a cost of $0.06 per 

standard label for each container in the baseline) plus five minutes of a technician’s time 

per drum to write by hand the contents of a container and an indication of the container’s 

contents.84, 85 Combined, these tally to labeling costs of between $7.44 and $14.87 per 

CESQG.

With respect to the cost of transporting hazardous waste to an LQG, CESQGs are 

assumed to comply with all existing DOT regulations. This EA assumes that large 

organizations would rely on an existing fleet of hazmat trucks to transport waste from a 

CESQG to an LQG or rely on a hazardous waste transporter within their own delivery 

network. These trucks are already required to comply with all DOT regulations. 

Therefore, the transportation cost for a CESQG would be between $0 and $127 per 

year.86

LQG costs per facility: LQGs that receive waste from CESQGs owned by the same 

organization would incur costs associated with notifying EPA of the transfer, marking the 

date that waste is received from a CESQG, maintaining records of the waste received, and 

including the waste received from CESQGs in their BR submission.

 

84 Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label Master based on purchase 

of 100-499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 

2013. 

85 Labor estimate of five minutes based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on June 

27, 2013.

86 The low-end estimate assumes there is no additional cost to put two 55-gallon drums on a hazmat truck already 

transporting materials from a CESQG to an LQG. The high-end estimate assumes CESQGs ship an average of four 55-gallon 

drums per year at a variable cost of $31.84 per drum (assuming no fixed cost because the truck is already part of the 

organization’s delivery network). RACER 2010 costs inflated to $2012 using GDP implicit price deflator, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis.
3-39

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

The additional burden for LQGs to notify EPA or a state authority of intra-organizational 

consolidation is assumed to be a one-time cost of $45.15 per LQG facility, consistent 

with the cost of a generator notifying EPA of its own generation activity.87 To estimate 

the costs associated with marking the date that CESQG-generated waste is received by an 

LQG, this EA assumes two minutes of a technician’s time per shipment for marking the 

shipments received from CESQGs, which translates to approximately $8.60 to $12.30 per 

LQG receiving CESQG waste (based on the range of six to nine CESQGs consolidating 

to an LQG). Similarly, this EA assumes that it requires approximately six minutes of a 

technician’s time to maintain records of all waste received, which represents a cost of 

$3.98 per LQG.88

To estimate the costs associated with LQGs reporting the additional waste from CESQGs 

in their BR submissions, this EA assumes that each additional waste stream received from 

CESQGs would require one additional GM form, at an estimated cost of $19.99 per 

form.89 Based on a range of two to four waste streams per CESQG (see Exhibit 3-1), this 

translates to additional BR reporting costs of $39.98 to $79.95 per CESQG from whom 

an LQG receives hazardous waste (on a biennial basis). This EA conservatively assumes 

that there is no duplication of waste streams between CESQGs owned by the same 

company and/or between CESQGs and the LQG that is consolidating the waste, or that 

similar waste streams are not combined. As noted above, each eligible LQG is estimated 

to receive hazardous waste from four to six CESQGs.

Combined, these requirements for LQGs—notification, marking shipments from 

CESQGs with the date received, maintaining records of waste received, and BR 

reporting—result in annualized costs of $190 to $470 per facility (using a seven percent 

discount rate) for eligible LQGs.

Total cost of intra-organizational transfers: Exhibit 3-13 reports the annualized unit and 

aggregate costs of CESQG consolidation under this voluntary provision of the proposed 

rule. Costs are also broken out by one-time and recurring costs (e.g., annual and biennial 

costs). 

 

87 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification 

of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.

88 Ibid.

89 Derived from EPA ICR 0976.16 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A 

Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.
3-40

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-13: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS F OR INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL 

TRANSFERS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RAT E)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQGa 2,410 $25.83b $168.41c $62,200 $406,000 $468,000

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 15,626 $0.00 $7.44 $0 $116,000 $116,000

TOTAL 18,036 N/A N/A $62,200 $522,000 $584,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQGd 2,410 $37.04

e $433.69f $89,300 $1,050,000 $1,130,000

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 22,411 $0.00 $142.23g $0 $3,190,000 $3,190,000

TOTAL 24,821 N/A N/A $89,300 $4,230,000 $4,320,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 6.5

CESQGs in the low impact scenario.

b. This represents a first-year cost of $292.77 per facility ($25.83 on an annualized basis) for 

notification ($45.15 per CESQG × 6.5 CESQGs per LQG).

c. This represents the sum of three recurring costs multiplied by 6.5 CESQGs per LQG facility: (1) an 

annual cost of $1.33 for labeling; (2) an annual cost of $3.98 for recordkeeping; and (3) a cost of 

$39.98 for BR submissions ($20.66 on an annualized basis), which is incurred every even-numbered 

year when reporting is required. Thus, the total annualized cost is $168.41 per facility.

d. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 9.3 

CESQGs in the high impact scenario.

e. This represents a first-year cost of $419.90 per facility ($37.04 on an annualized basis) for 

notification ($45.15 per CESQG × 9.3 CESQGs per LQG).

f. This represents the sum of three recurring costs multiplied by 9.3 CESQGs per LQG facility: (1) an 

annual cost of $1.33 for labeling; (2) an annual cost of $3.98 for recordkeeping; and (3) a cost of 

$79.95 for BR submissions ($41.33 on an annualized basis), which is incurred every even-numbered 

year when reporting is required. Thus, the total annualized cost is $433.69 per facility.

g. This represents the sum of two per facility costs: (1) an annual cost of $14.87 for labeling and (2) an 

annual cost of $127.36 for transportation.
3-41

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

The intra-organizational transfer provision of the proposed rule may also result in cost 

savings for some entities. Specifically, the potential cost savings may include a lower 

average cost of hazardous waste disposal. These cost savings, and other benefits of the 

rule, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this EA.

Episodic Generation (Voluntary)

To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate much of their 

hazardous waste on an episodic basis, the proposed rule would allow a CESQG or an 

SQG to maintain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned 

episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar 

month that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent regulatory status. To 

take advantage of this provision, an SQG or CESQG would be subject to the following 

conditions:

(a) A limit of one episodic event (planned or unplanned) per calendar year;

(b) Notification to EPA or the authorized state at least 30 calendar days prior to 

initiating a planned episodic event or within 24 hours of an unplanned 

episodic event;

(c) CESQGs must obtain a RCRA ID number;

(d) Facilities must meet the following accumulation standards: 

(i) CESQGs must mark containers with the date the episodic event began; 

label containers “Episodic Hazardous Waste;” manage hazardous waste 

in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or release 

of hazardous waste; ensure that tanks are in good condition and 

compatible with the hazardous waste stored within; and identify an 

emergency coordinator for the duration of the event;

(ii) SQGs must mark the container or tank log book with the date the 

episodic event began; label the container or write in the tank log book 

“Episodic Hazardous Waste”; mark the container or write in the tank log 

book words that identify the contents and indicate the hazards of the 

contents; and comply with the applicable accumulation conditions for 

SQGs;

(e) Hazardous waste generated from the episodic event must be managed on-site 

or manifested and shipped off-site to a permitted TSDF;

(f) Facilities must complete and maintain records that include (1) the beginning 

and end dates of the event, (2) a description of the event, (3) the types and 

quantities of hazardous wastes generated at the event, (4) a description of 

how the hazardous waste was managed, and (5) name(s) of hazardous waste 

transporters that transported the waste to a permitted TSDF.
3-42

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

This EA assumes that facilities already ensure containers are in good condition and 

compatible with the hazardous waste stored within them and manage hazardous waste in 

a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or a release. Furthermore, 

this EA assumes that facilities that do not take advantage of the flexibility provided by 

the episodic generation provision of the proposed rule would experience no change in 

costs relative to the baseline. 

The costs associated with this portion of the rule depend on the following variables: (1) 

the estimated number of episodic generators in the regulated universe, (2) the average 

quantity of hazardous waste associated with each episodic event, (3) the number of waste 

streams associated with each event, and (4) the costs associated with the various activities 

included in the conditions outlined above. 

Number of episodic generators: To estimate the number of episodic generators in the 

potentially affected universe, this EA relies on data from EPA’s RCRAInfo database. 

Specifically, changes in generator status identified in RCRAInfo are assumed to be 

indicative of episodic generation events. RCRAInfo data from 2000 to 2013 are used to 

identify facilities that: (1) initially submitted a RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form 

to obtain an EPA ID number as an SQG and later re-notified EPA to indicate a change in 

their generator status from SQG to LQG; (2) obtained an EPA ID number as a CESQG 

and later re-notified EPA to indicate a change in their generator status from CESQG to 

LQG; or (3) obtained an EPA ID number as a CESQG and then reported a change in their 

generator status from CESQG to SQG. Using this method, EPA estimates that

approximately 2,500 facilities report a change in their generator status each year. These 

data suggest that 1.4 to 1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.4 to 0.6 percent of CESQGs 

nationwide report a change in their generator status annually. 

Of these episodic generators, the number meeting the eligibility conditions for this 

provision of the proposed rule (e.g., no more than one episodic generation event per year 

lasting one month or less) is uncertain. Neither EPA nor any state agencies maintain data 

on monthly generation of hazardous waste. To address this uncertainty, this EA estimates 

the number of eligible facilities as a range. The low end of the range assumes that 50 

percent of the episodic generators characterized above would be eligible, while the high 

end assumes that all episodic generators would be eligible. Based on these assumptions, 

Exhibit 3-14 reports the estimated breakdown of changes in generator status by category. 
3-43

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-14: NUMBER OF GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES IN THE POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED UNIVERSE PER YEAR

REPORTED CHANGE IN GENERATOR STATUS

NUMBER OF FACILITIES PER YEAR1

LOW END HIGH END

SQG-to-LQG 419 837

CESQG-to-LQG 264 527

CESQG-to-SQG 590 1,180

TOTAL 1,273 2,544

Notes:

1. Based on analysis of EPA’s RCRAInfo database from 2000 to 2013.

Generation of hazardous waste during episodic events: This EA relies on EPA’s BR 

database to estimate the average hazardous waste generation quantities associated with 

episodic events. Data from 2005 to 2011 were analyzed to identify facilities that 

submitted multiple BR records, reporting as an SQG in one or more years and an LQG in 

at least one year. These data suggest that facilities that changed their generator status 

generated, on average, approximately three times as much waste in years when they 

crossed the LQG threshold relative to the baseline. This EA assumes that, on average, the 

amount of hazardous waste generation associated with episodic events for SQGs is 

reflected by this 3-to-1 ratio. Similar data are unavailable for CESQGs. In the absence of 

such information, this EA assumes that the 3-to-1 ratio for SQGs also applies to 

CESQGs. Based on this assumption, this EA estimates that an episodic event for 

facilities crossing the LQG threshold would involve 4.6 to 7.7 tons of hazardous waste, 

requiring 30 to 49 drums, and that events surpassing the SQG threshold would yield 0.6 

to 0.9 tons of hazardous waste (four to six drums). 

Number of waste streams generated during episodic events: This EA assumes a range 

for the number of waste streams associated with episodic events. At the low-end of the 

range, this analysis assumes an episodic generation event involves a single projectspecific waste stream (e.g., asbestos removal). As the high-end, this analysis 

conservatively assumes an episodic generator manages as many waste streams as a 

typical LQG (in the case of SQG-to-LQG or CESQG-to-LQG events) or an SQG (in the 

case of CESQG-to-SQG events), as represented by the mean values presented in Exhibit 

3-1.

Unit costs for rule conditions: The costs incurred by facilities to comply with the 

conditions set forth in this voluntary provision of the proposed rule include those 

associated with (1) obtaining an EPA ID number (if a facility does not already have an 

EPA ID number), (2) notifying EPA or a state agency of an episodic event, (3) 

completing and maintaining records of waste streams associated with an episodic event, 

(4) identifying containers consistent with the enhanced labeling/marking provisions of the 
3-44

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

rule, and (5) completing a manifest for episodic waste sent offsite (an additional cost for 

CESQGs only). 

CESQGs are not required to have an EPA ID number. Therefore, facilities that 

experience a change in their generator status from CESQG-to-SQG or CESQG-to-LQG 

are assumed to incur a one-time notification cost to obtain an EPA ID number. These 

costs are described earlier in this chapter under Re-notification. Additionally, the cost, 

for any generator, to notify EPA or a state agency of an episodic event is assumed to be 

similar to the initial cost of notifying EPA of waste generation activity to obtain an EPA 

ID number (i.e., $45.15, as presented above in the Re-notification section).

The costs to complete and maintain records of hazardous waste management vary with 

the number of waste streams generated during episodic events. This EA assumes these 

costs are similar to the variable costs of preparing a GM form—approximately $19.99 per 

waste stream.90 Similarly, labeling costs vary with the generation of hazardous waste 

during episodic events. These costs are described earlier in this chapter under 

Labeling/Marking, but are also assumed to include an additional 30 seconds of a 

technician’s time to mark the date the episodic event began. As described above, SQGs 

and LQGs must already comply with the enhanced labeling provisions of the rule. 

Therefore, the only additional cost associated with this voluntary provision of the 

proposed rule is the additional marking of the date the episodic event occurred for 

CESQGs.

The rule’s manifesting requirements would result in additional costs for CESQGs, as 

these facilities are not required to manifest in the baseline. Specifically, the shipment of 

hazardous waste generated during the episodic event would result in additional costs of 

approximately $9.56 per CESQG that takes advantage of the episodic generation 

provision.91

Finally, CESQGs that do not already have a contingency plan are required to identify the 

name(s), address(es), and contact information for all emergency coordinators and submit 

this information to relevant local emergency responders. This EA assumes that the cost 

to prepare this information is approximately one-fifth of the total time required to collect 

all data required in a contingency plan, plus the cost of submitting this information.92 

 

90 Derived from Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste 

Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, 

September 2012.

91 Value derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 801.18 "Requirements for 

Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 

2012.

92 This EA assumes the time burden to prepare a contingency plan is uniformly distributed across the five data items 

regulatory collected (action plan, arrangement with local emergency responders, updated list of emergency coordinators, 

updated list of all emergency equipment at the facility, and evacuation plan). EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator 

Standards, March 2011.
3-45

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Therefore, the cost of identifying emergency coordinators is assumed to be approximately 

$23.50.93

Exhibit 3-15 shows the annualized unit and aggregate costs of the episodic generation 

requirements under this voluntary provision of the proposed rule by facility type. All of 

the costs are incurred on an annual basis by SQGs and CESQGs that choose to take 

advantage of this provision of the rule. A single facility may experience an episodic 

event in one or multiple years.

EXHIBIT 3-15: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR EPISODIC GENERATION 

(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DI SCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 419 $0.00 $65.14a $0 $27,300 $27,300

CESQGb 854 $0.00 $211.96c $0 $181,000 $181,000

TOTAL 1,273 N/A N/A $0 $208,000 $208,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 837 $0.00 $384.96a $0 $322,000 $322,000

CESQGb 1,707 $0.00 $437.21d $0 $746,000 $746,000

TOTAL 2,544 N/A N/A $0 $1,070,000 $1,070,000

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. SQGs incur two types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an episodic event and (2) 

recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 1 waste stream in the low impact scenario (or 17 

waste streams in the high impact scenario).

b. This EA assumes that between 854 and 1,707 CESQGs may take advantage of this provision of the 

rule. Of these, approximately 31% would otherwise be required to change their generator status 

from CESQG-to-LQG and 69% would otherwise be required to change their generator status from 

CESQG-to-SQG.

 

93 This cost includes 0.4 hours of a technician’s time and 0.2 hours of administrative time to collect data, plus an additional 

10 minutes of administrative time to submit the information to the relevant local emergency responders. Based on 

information from EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, March 2011.
3-46

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

c. This figure represents a weighted average cost across all CESQGs; costs vary according to whether a 

facility would otherwise change its generator status from CESQG-to-LQG or CESQG-to-SQG. CESQGs 

incur six types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an episodic event; (2) 

recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 1 waste stream in the low impact scenario; (3) 

labor costs of $45.15 to obtain an EPA ID number; (4) for CESQG-to-LQG: enhanced labeling costs of 

$39.82 for 1 hour of a technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five 

and half minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × thirty 55-gallon 

drums in the low impact scenario; for CESQG-to-SQG: enhanced labeling costs of $9.95 for 15 

minutes of a technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half 

minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × four 55-gallon drums in 

the low impact scenario; (5) manifest costs of $9.56 for a single shipment within 45 days of the 

episodic event; and (6) labor costs of $23.50 to identify emergency coordinators.

d. This figure represents a weighted average cost across all CESQGs; costs vary according to whether a 

facility would otherwise change its generator status from CESQG-to-LQG or CESQG-to-SQG. CESQGs 

incur six types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an episodic event; (2) 

recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 17 waste streams for CESQG-to-LQG facilities and 

8 waste streams for CESQG-to-SQG facilities in the high impact scenario; (3) labor costs of $45.15 to 

obtain an EPA ID number; (4) for CESQG-to-LQG: enhanced labeling costs of $39.82 for 1 hour of a 

technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half minutes of a 

technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × forty-nine 55-gallon drums in the low 

impact scenario; for CESQG-to-SQG: enhanced labeling costs of $9.95 for 15 minutes of a 

technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half minutes of a 

technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × six 55-gallon drums in the high 

impact scenario; (5) manifest costs of $9.56 for a single shipment within 45 days of the episodic 

event; and (6) labor costs of $23.50 to identify emergency coordinators.

The episodic generation provision of the proposed rule may also result in significant cost 

savings for qualified facilities. Facilities that experience one-time or short-term episodic 

events within a single calendar month each year may avoid the costs associated with 

compliance under the more stringent generator status requirements. These cost savings, 

and other benefits of the rule, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this EA.

Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes (Voluntary)

Current RCRA regulations require that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or 

reactive waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, 

LQGs may experience difficulty meeting this requirement due to the relatively small 

footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA is 

proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility-specific waiver from their 

local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste accumulation 

property line requirement.

The costs associated with this provision of the rule would include the cost of select LQGs 

applying for a waiver from the existing requirement. The number of facilities that would 

apply for such a waiver is unknown. As an indicator of the maximum number of LQGs 

that might apply, approximately 63 percent of all LQGs manage reactive or ignitable 

waste and are located in metropolitan areas (population of 50,000 or more), and 68 

percent of LQGs manage this waste and are located in metropolitan or micropolitan areas 
3-47

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

(population of at least 10,000).94 Based on the 14,262 LQGs in the universe, these values 

translate to a range of 8,985 to 9,699 LQGs that might apply for a waiver. This range 

most likely represents an overestimate, however, because not all of these facilities 

necessarily have space constraints limiting their ability to keep ignitable or reactive waste 

at least 15 meters from the property line.

As an alternative to these values, the number of LQGs that report a change in physical 

address between BR reporting cycles may represent a better indicator of the number of 

LQGs that decide to submit a waiver application, as facilities experiencing problems 

complying with the 15-meter requirement may move to a different site to ensure 

compliance. As shown in Exhibit 3-4, EPA’s BR data suggest that approximately 0.05 

percent of LQGs report a change in physical address on a biennial basis, which translates 

to 0.025 percent annually. Applying this value to the 14,262 LQGs in the regulatory 

universe implies that approximately four LQGs change their location each year. 

Based on these data, this EA assumes that between four and 9,699 LQGs apply for a 

waiver during the first year of the rule’s implementation. In subsequent years, a subset of 

all new LQGs is assumed to apply for a waiver. As indicated in the methods discussion 

for the emergency response provisions of the rule, this EA estimates that there are 

approximately 2,350 new LQGs each year. Assuming that 68 percent of these facilities 

are in urban areas (consistent with the discussion above) and that the 0.025 percent value 

discussed in the previous paragraph represents a reasonable lower bound, this EA 

estimates that between 1 and 1,601 facilities may apply for a waiver each year after the 

first year of the rule’s implementation.

To estimate the cost of applying for an exemption, this EA assumes that this cost is 

similar to that for a generator submitting an exemption from the RCRA manifest 

requirements. These costs reflect 0.1 hours of managerial time, 0.17 hours of technical 

time, and 0.10 hours of clerical to develop the application, and 0.1 hours of managerial 

time and 0.4 hours of technical time to review the application.95 This represents a cost of 

approximately $41 per application per facility.

Exhibit 3-16 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of preparing and submitting 

a waiver by facility type. For reporting purposes, costs are broken out by one-time costs 

and recurring costs of the rulemaking even though all costs are incurred only once on a 

per-facility basis. The one-time costs reflect the first-year costs of the rule, which may be 

potentially incurred by all LQGs in urban environments. The recurring costs of the rule 

only reflect applications by new LQGs in the affected universe.

 

94 Based on analysis of EPA’s 2011 BR database. Facility zip codes are cross-walked with metro/micro statistical areas using 

the Missouri Census Data Center’s Geographic Correspondence Engine accessed on September 20, 2013 at 

http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/geocorr12.html.

95 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 801.18 "Requirements for Generators, 

Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 2012.
3-48

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 3-16: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FO R SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]a

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]b

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]c

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 4 (1) $3.64 $37.67 $15 $38 $52

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 4 (1) N/A N/A $15 $38 $52

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]a

ANNUALIZED COST PER 

FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED

COSTS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]b

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]c

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 9,699 (1,601) $3.64 $37.67 $35,300 $60,300 $95,700

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 9,699 (1,601) N/A N/A $35,300 $60,300 $95,700

Notes:

All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of facilities applying for waivers in the 

first year of rule implementation; the value in parentheses represents the estimated number for all 

subsequent years. This EA assumes 4 LQGs would apply for waivers in the first year of the rule and 

1 LQG each year thereafter in the low impact scenario. It assumes as many as 9,699 LQGs would 

apply for waivers in the first year of the rule and up to 1,601 LQGs each year thereafter in the high 

impact scenario. 

b. The one-time costs of the rule represent the cost for all affected existing LQGs in the regulatory 

universe to apply for waivers. The cost of the application for a waiver is assumed to be $41.31 per 

facility (or $3.64 on an annualized basis).

c. The recurring costs of the rule represent the cost for all affected new LQGs to apply for waivers. An 

average of 1,601 facilities will apply for waivers at a cost of $41.31 per facility each year after the 

first year of the rule (i.e., over years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon), thus the average 

annualized cost over a 20-year period is $37.67 per facility. In other words, the $41.31 incurred in 

years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present 

values are summed to yield an aggregate present value number, and this present value sum is then 

annualized.
3-49

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

RESULTS

Exhibit 3-17 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by provision.96 These 

costs are reported on an undiscounted basis as well as under discount rates of both seven 

percent and three percent. As the exhibit shows, the most significant costs under the 

proposed rule are associated with labeling/marking. In addition, two of the provisions—

intra-organizational transfers and episodic generation—are optional and anticipated to 

result in cost savings, which are not included in Exhibit 3-17, but are included in the 

discussion of benefits in Chapter 4.

The costs presented in Exhibit 3-17 do not appear to be sensitive to the discount rate. 

However, the various rule provisions differ with respect to the time horizon over which 

they affect generator activity. Exhibits 3-18(a)-(c) therefore reports the total costs of the 

rule by year. As shown in the exhibits, a significant percentage of the costs of the 

proposed rule is composed of one-time notification costs incurred in the first year of the 

rule as opposed to recurring annual (or biennial) costs. This EA uses a 20-year time 

frame to assess these costs in present value and annualized terms.

Exhibit 3-19 presents the distribution of the total costs of the proposed rule across the 

three RCRA generator categories (i.e., LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs). As the exhibit 

shows, the aggregate costs of the rule are higher for SQGs and CESQGs than LQGs 

because of the greater number of these facilities in the potentially affected universe. 

However, on a per facility basis, the costs of the rule are higher for LQGs. 

Based on Exhibit 3-19, on a per facility basis, the average annualized costs of the 

mandatory provisions of the rule are negligible for CESQGs, between $79 and $163 for 

SQGs, and between $129 and $321 for LQGs (using a seven percent discount rate). The 

average annualized per facility costs of the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the 

rule combined are between $1 and $13 for CESQGs, between $80 and $170 for SQGs, 

and between $162 and $401 for LQGs (using a seven percent discount rate).

The average annualized costs of the proposed rule appear to be low relative to many of 

the unit costs presented in this chapter, in part, because only a fraction of facilities are 

affected by each provision of the rule. Spreading these costs over the full universe of 

LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs reduces these costs on a per-facility basis. Similarly, the 

actual costs of compliance for a single facility may be much higher than the average 

values reported above. For example, closing as a landfill would cost a single LQG tens of 

thousands of dollars on an annualized basis; however, this EA assumes that three or fewer 

such closures occur each year.

Finally, Exhibit 3-20 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by one-time 

and recurring costs. As the exhibit shows, less than 20 percent of the costs of the 

proposed rule are incurred on a one-time basis in the low impact scenario and less than 10 

percent of the costs are incurred on a one-time basis in the high impact scenario. As 

 

96 All cost figures in this section are reported to three significant digits.
3-50

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

described above, these one-time costs are concentrated in the first year of the rule’s 

implementation, after which time the costs associated with the rule decline significantly 

(see Exhibit 3-18).
3-51

EXHIBIT 3-17: TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY REQUIREMENT ($2012)

REQUIREMENT

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $374,000 $386,000 $403,000 $1,100,000 $1,130,000 $1,180,000

Re-notification $737,000 $748,000 $762,000 $946,000 $960,000 $978,000

Labeling $3,020,000 $3,160,000 $3,370,000 $6,120,000 $6,270,000 $6,480,000

Closure $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 $1,840,000 $1,340,000 $988,000

Emergency Response Preparedness $414,000 $416,000 $420,000 $804,000 $807,000 $811,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $549,000 $549,000 $549,000

BR Requirements $290,000 $294,000 $299,000 $918,000 $931,000 $949,000

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,050,000 $5,220,000 $5,480,000 $12,300,000 $12,000,000 $11,900,000

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $547,000 $562,000 $584,000 $4,250,000 $4,280,000 $4,320,000

Episodic Generation $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 $50 $50 $82,900 $88,000 $95,700

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $755,000 $771,000 $793,000 $5,400,000 $5,440,000 $5,490,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $5,810,000 $5,990,000 $6,270,000 $17,700,000 $17,400,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-52

EXHIBIT 3-18(A): TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY YEAR, MANDATORY PROVISIONS ONLY ($2012)

YEAR

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE

2016 $15,700,000 $15,700,000 $15,700,000 $25,100,000 $24,600,000 $24,300,000

2017 $3,520,000 $3,410,000 $3,290,000 $9,840,000 $9,070,000 $8,400,000

2018 $5,570,000 $5,250,000 $4,860,000 $13,600,000 $12,300,000 $11,100,000

2019 $3,520,000 $3,220,000 $2,870,000 $9,840,000 $8,550,000 $7,340,000

2020 $5,570,000 $4,950,000 $4,250,000 $13,600,000 $11,600,000 $9,700,000

2021 $3,520,000 $3,030,000 $2,510,000 $9,840,000 $8,060,000 $6,410,000

2022 $5,570,000 $4,660,000 $3,710,000 $13,600,000 $10,900,000 $8,470,000

2023 $3,520,000 $2,860,000 $2,190,000 $9,840,000 $7,600,000 $5,600,000

2024 $5,570,000 $4,400,000 $3,240,000 $13,600,000 $10,300,000 $7,400,000

2025 $3,520,000 $2,690,000 $1,910,000 $9,840,000 $7,160,000 $4,890,000

2026 $5,570,000 $4,140,000 $2,830,000 $13,600,000 $9,720,000 $6,460,000

2027 $3,520,000 $2,540,000 $1,670,000 $9,840,000 $6,750,000 $4,270,000

2028 $5,570,000 $3,910,000 $2,470,000 $13,600,000 $9,170,000 $5,650,000

2029 $3,520,000 $2,390,000 $1,460,000 $9,840,000 $6,360,000 $3,730,000

2030 $5,570,000 $3,680,000 $2,160,000 $13,600,000 $8,640,000 $4,930,000

2031 $3,520,000 $2,260,000 $1,270,000 $9,840,000 $6,000,000 $3,260,000

2032 $5,570,000 $3,470,000 $1,890,000 $13,600,000 $8,140,000 $4,310,000

2033 $3,520,000 $2,130,000 $1,110,000 $9,840,000 $5,650,000 $2,850,000

2034 $5,570,000 $3,270,000 $1,650,000 $13,600,000 $7,680,000 $3,760,000

2035 $3,520,000 $2,000,000 $972,000 $9,840,000 $5,330,000 $2,490,000

Cumulative Total Costs 

(2016-2035)

$101,000,000 $80,000,000 $62,100,000 $246,000,000 $184,000,000 $135,000,000

Annualized Costs $5,050,000 $5,220,000 $5,480,000 $12,300,000 $12,000,000 $11,900,000

Notes:

All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-53

EXHIBIT 3-18(B): TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY YEAR, VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS ONLY ($2012)

YEAR

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE

2016 $1,740,000 $1,740,000 $1,740,000 $7,580,000 $7,580,000 $7,580,000

2017 $408,000 $396,000 $381,000 $4,440,000 $4,310,000 $4,150,000

2018 $1,030,000 $973,000 $902,000 $6,230,000 $5,880,000 $5,440,000

2019 $408,000 $373,000 $333,000 $4,440,000 $4,060,000 $3,630,000

2020 $1,030,000 $917,000 $787,000 $6,230,000 $5,540,000 $4,760,000

2021 $408,000 $352,000 $291,000 $4,440,000 $3,830,000 $3,170,000

2022 $1,030,000 $864,000 $688,000 $6,230,000 $5,220,000 $4,150,000

2023 $408,000 $331,000 $254,000 $4,440,000 $3,610,000 $2,770,000

2024 $1,030,000 $815,000 $601,000 $6,230,000 $4,920,000 $3,630,000

2025 $408,000 $312,000 $222,000 $4,440,000 $3,400,000 $2,420,000

2026 $1,030,000 $768,000 $525,000 $6,230,000 $4,640,000 $3,170,000

2027 $408,000 $294,000 $194,000 $4,440,000 $3,210,000 $2,110,000

2028 $1,030,000 $724,000 $458,000 $6,230,000 $4,370,000 $2,770,000

2029 $408,000 $277,000 $169,000 $4,440,000 $3,020,000 $1,840,000

2030 $1,030,000 $682,000 $400,000 $6,230,000 $4,120,000 $2,420,000

2031 $408,000 $262,000 $148,000 $4,440,000 $2,850,000 $1,610,000

2032 $1,030,000 $643,000 $350,000 $6,230,000 $3,880,000 $2,110,000

2033 $408,000 $247,000 $129,000 $4,440,000 $2,690,000 $1,410,000

2034 $1,030,000 $606,000 $305,000 $6,230,000 $3,660,000 $1,840,000

2035 $408,000 $232,000 $113,000 $4,440,000 $2,530,000 $1,230,000

Cumulative Total Costs 

(2016-2035) $15,100,000 $11,800,000 $8,990,000 $108,000,000 $83,300,000 $62,200,000

Annualized Costs $755,000 $590,000 $449,000 $5,400,000 $5,440,000 $5,490,000

Notes:

All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-54

EXHIBIT 3-18(C): TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY YEAR, MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS ($2012)

YEAR

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE UNDISCOUNTED

3% DISCOUNT 

RATE

7% DISCOUNT 

RATE

2016 $17,500,000 $17,500,000 $17,500,000 $32,700,000 $32,200,000 $31,800,000

2017 $3,920,000 $3,810,000 $3,670,000 $14,300,000 $13,400,000 $12,600,000

2018 $6,600,000 $6,220,000 $5,770,000 $19,800,000 $18,200,000 $16,600,000

2019 $3,920,000 $3,590,000 $3,200,000 $14,300,000 $12,600,000 $11,000,000

2020 $6,600,000 $5,860,000 $5,040,000 $19,800,000 $17,100,000 $14,500,000

2021 $3,920,000 $3,380,000 $2,800,000 $14,300,000 $11,900,000 $9,580,000

2022 $6,600,000 $5,530,000 $4,400,000 $19,800,000 $16,200,000 $12,600,000

2023 $3,920,000 $3,190,000 $2,440,000 $14,300,000 $11,200,000 $8,360,000

2024 $6,600,000 $5,210,000 $3,840,000 $19,800,000 $15,200,000 $11,000,000

2025 $3,920,000 $3,010,000 $2,130,000 $14,300,000 $10,600,000 $7,310,000

2026 $6,600,000 $4,910,000 $3,360,000 $19,800,000 $14,400,000 $9,630,000

2027 $3,920,000 $2,830,000 $1,860,000 $14,300,000 $9,960,000 $6,380,000

2028 $6,600,000 $4,630,000 $2,930,000 $19,800,000 $13,500,000 $8,410,000

2029 $3,920,000 $2,670,000 $1,630,000 $14,300,000 $9,390,000 $5,570,000

2030 $6,600,000 $4,360,000 $2,560,000 $19,800,000 $12,800,000 $7,350,000

2031 $3,920,000 $2,520,000 $1,420,000 $14,300,000 $8,850,000 $4,870,000

2032 $6,600,000 $4,110,000 $2,240,000 $19,800,000 $12,000,000 $6,420,000

2033 $3,920,000 $2,370,000 $1,240,000 $14,300,000 $8,340,000 $4,250,000

2034 $6,600,000 $3,880,000 $1,950,000 $19,800,000 $11,300,000 $5,610,000

2035 $3,920,000 $2,240,000 $1,080,000 $14,300,000 $7,860,000 $3,710,000

Cumulative Total Costs 

(2016-2035) $116,000,000 $91,800,000 $71,000,000 $354,000,000 $267,000,000 $197,000,000

Annualized Costs $5,810,000 $5,990,000 $6,270,000 $17,700,000 $17,400,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-55

EXHIBIT 3-19: TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY GENERATOR STATUS ($2012)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE)

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(UNDISCOUNTED)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 3% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

(USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT 

RATE)

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

LQG 14,262 $1,470,000 $1,620,000 $1,840,000 14,262 $4,920,000 $4,590,000 $4,490,000

SQG 45,762 $3,580,000 $3,600,000 $3,630,000 59,702 $7,350,000 $7,390,000 $7,440,000

CESQG 292,912 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 469,378 $9,760 $9,800 $9,860

SUB-TOTAL 352,936 $5,050,000 $5,220,000 $5,480,000 543,342 $12,300,000 $12,000,000 $11,900,000

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

LQG 14,262 $431,000 $446,000 $468,000 14,262 $1,150,000 $1,180,000 $1,230,000

SQG 45,762 $27,300 $27,300 $27,300 59,702 $322,000 $322,000 $322,000

CESQG 292,912 $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 469,378 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 $3,930,000

SUB-TOTAL 352,936 $755,000 $771,000 $793,000 543,342 $5,400,000 $5,440,000 $5,490,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

LQG 14,262 $1,900,000 $2,070,000 $2,310,000 14,262 $6,070,000 $5,770,000 $5,720,000

SQG 45,762 $3,610,000 $3,630,000 $3,650,000 59,702 $7,670,000 $7,710,000 $7,760,000

CESQG 292,912 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 469,378 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000

TOTAL 352,936 $5,810,000 $5,990,000 $6,270,000 543,342 $17,700,000 $17,400,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-56

EXHIBIT 3-20: TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY REQUIREMENT AND FREQUENCY USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE ($2012)

REQUIREMENT

LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

RECURRING 

COSTS

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

RECURRING 

COSTS

TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $96,500 $307,000 $403,000 $271,000 $908,000 $1,180,000

Re-notification $0 $762,000 $762,000 $0 $978,000 $978,000

Labeling $818,000 $2,550,000 $3,370,000 $818,000 $5,660,000 $6,480,000

Closure $0 $28,800 $28,800 $0 $988,000 $988,000

Emergency Response Preparedness $12,900 $407,000 $420,000 $15,900 $795,000 $811,000

Transfer Facility $0 $192,000 $192,000 $0 $549,000 $549,000

BR Requirements $0 $299,000 $299,000 $0 $949,000 $949,000

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $928,000 $4,550,000 $5,480,000 $1,110,000 $10,800,000 $11,900,000

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $62,200 $522,000 $584,000 $89,300 $4,230,000 $4,320,000

Episodic Generation $0 $208,000 $208,000 $0 $1,070,000 $1,070,000

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $15 $38 $52 $35,300 $60,300 $95,700

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $62,300 $730,000 $793,000 $125,000 $5,360,000 $5,490,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined $990,000 $5,280,000 $6,270,000 $1,230,000 $16,200,000 $17,400,000

Notes:

All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
3-57

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

ANALYTIC LIMITATIO NS

While the analysis presented in this chapter provides reasonable estimates of the costs 

associated with the proposed rule, the data and methods used in this analysis are subject 

to several uncertainties, the most significant of which are outlined below.

 Facility-specific characteristics not accounted for. In practice, hazardous waste 

management methods vary by industry and between individual facilities in the 

same industry.97 Sufficient data were not available for this analysis to incorporate 

such considerations into the estimation of costs. Therefore, while costs are 

estimated separately for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs, they do not account for 

facility-specific differences. Thus, the average per facility cost estimates reported 

in this document may either overstate or understate costs for individual facilities. 

 CESQG and SQG data are generally limited. This EA relies on limited data 

and information available in the BR and provided by the states to make 

assumptions regarding hazardous waste generation and management among SQGs 

and CESQGs. In cases where data are unavailable, LQG (or SQG) data analysis 

and trends are applied to the CESQG universe, which may lead to overestimation 

or underestimation of actual costs. 

 Ownership structure of entities is unknown. The cost of the rule’s CESQG 

consolidation provisions is highly dependent on the uncertain ownership structure 

of the regulated universe. Specifically, the estimated costs of consolidation 

depend on the number of CESQGs that could consolidate their waste and the 

number of LQGs that could manage this waste. This EA uses a facility name 

matching algorithm for a limited number of states as the basis for estimating these 

values. Because this approach uses data from a limited number of states and 

applies them more broadly to the U.S. as a whole, it may understate the number of 

facilities that could take advantage of this provision of the rule. In addition, the 

number of eligible entities that may choose to consolidate waste is also highly 

uncertain.

 Activity in SAAs. As described above, the costs of the labeling/marking 

requirements of the rule are partially dependent on the number of containers in 

SAAs. Because comprehensive data on SAAs were not readily available for this 

analysis, this EA assumed that the number of containers in satellite areas is half 

the number in primary storage areas. This assumption may lead to overestimation 

or underestimation of the rule’s costs.

 Number of LQGs closing as landfills is unknown. No data are available on the 

number of LQGs that are required to close with contamination in place. Absent 

such information, this EA assumes that zero to one percent of the LQGs closing 

 

97 Personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on September 10, 2013.
3-58

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

will close as a landfill. This assumption may either overstate or understate actual 

closure costs.

 Eligibility for episodic generation is uncertain. Data on episodic generation are 

extremely limited. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately estimate the 

percentage of facilities that experience one-time or short-term generation events 

that last for one calendar month or less. To address this uncertainty, this EA 

assumes that between 50 and 100 percent of episodic events occur within a single 

calendar month. It is not clear whether this assumption leads to overestimation or 

underestimation of costs.

 Number of facilities applying for waivers under the rule provision for 

ignitable and reactive waste. While the BR includes data identifying facilities 

that generate reactive and/or ignitable waste, no data are available that clearly 

indicate which of these facilities are located in areas where it is not possible to 

meet the 15-meter property line requirement. This EA estimates the potential 

costs of this provision based on assumptions spanning a wide range, the upper end 

of which likely leads to overestimation of this provision’s costs. 
4-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CHAPTER 4 | ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an assessment of the benefits that may result from the proposed 

Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. These benefits reflect the rule’s focus 

on enhancing protection of human health and the environment and improving the 

efficiency of the RCRA hazardous waste generator standards. For example, the rule 

would allow for more effective emergency response in the event of an accident due to the 

proposed changes to the generator marking/labeling and contingency plan requirements. 

In addition, the rule’s provisions related to the documentation of negative hazardous 

waste determinations may reduce the amount of hazardous waste inappropriately 

managed as non-hazardous. The benefits of the rule also include cost savings likely to be 

realized by many generators due to the increased flexibility that the rule provides for 

CESQGs and for generators that would be elevated to a more stringent regulatory status

because of episodic generation events.

This EA would ideally quantify and monetize, wherever possible, each of these benefits. 

Such an analysis is feasible for some categories of benefits. For the majority of benefits, 

however, sufficient data are unavailable to support a detailed quantitative analysis. For 

example, quantifying benefits associated with improved emergency response due to more 

detailed container labeling would require data on the annual number of emergencies at 

generator sites, the current risks associated with these incidents, the extent to which more 

detailed labeling would affect the procedures of emergency responders, and the reduction 

in risk associated with these changes. Detailed data on these items are not readily 

available.

The sections that follow characterize benefits for each individual provision of the rule. 

For those benefit categories with detailed data available, this EA quantifies and monetizes 

benefits. In instances where quantitative data are not available, this EA provides a 

qualitative assessment of benefits. 

MONETIZED BENEFITS

The available data support the monetization of benefits associated with three major 

provisions of the proposed rule: the accumulation of hazardous waste on drip pads or in 

containment buildings, the intra-organization consolidation of CESQG waste at an LQG,

and the flexibility afforded SQGs and CESQGs that cross the threshold to a more 

stringent regulatory status due to episodic generation events. As indicated in greater 

detail below, these provisions are estimated to result in annualized benefits of $34,800 to 
4-2

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

$35,300, $2.5 to $4.5 million, and $3.8 to $7.7 million, respectively. Combined, these 

provisions total $6.2 to $12.2 million in annualized benefits. These values do not differ 

significantly regardless of whether a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate is employed.

DRIP PAD AND CONTAINMENT BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SQGs

As described in Chapter 3, the proposed rule would allow SQGs that accumulate

hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a 

permit or interim status to comply with the LQG 90-day accumulation limit (as opposed 

to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent 

requirements for SQGs. Therefore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads 

or in containment buildings would experience a cost savings associated with no longer 

being subject to the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development 

of a full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Thus, the incremental cost savings for 

these generators is the difference between the LQG and SQG costs associated with these 

activities. 

EPA estimates that within the regulated universe there are eight SQGs that accumulate 

hazardous waste on drip pads and four SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in 

containment buildings currently subject to the LQG requirements.

98

 Furthermore, this EA 

assumes that these facilities would not otherwise be subject to the LQG requirements 

(i.e., for waste not accumulated on drips pads or in containment buildings). EPA does not 

estimate that any CESQGs currently use drip pads or containment buildings. Thus, there 

are twelve SQGs that may experience a cost savings as a result of the proposed rule. The 

following sections present the cost savings associated with the additional flexibility for 

SQGs to no longer comply with certain LQG requirements and estimate the total potential 

cost savings realized by SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in 

containment buildings for 90 days or less. All cost savings estimates presented below 

reflect the hourly labor costs reported in Chapter 3.

Training

LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct annual employee training related to hazardous 

waste management procedures to ensure that staff are able to perform their duties to 

maintain facility compliance with RCRA requirements and respond effectively to 

emergencies. The requirements for LQGs in accordance with §262.34(a)(4), which 

reference Subparts C and D in 40 CFR Part 265 and §265.16, obligate LQGs to ensure 

that their training program is: 

“designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to 

emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures, emergency 

equipment, and emergency systems, including, where applicable:(i) Procedures 

 

98 Based on personal communication with Jim O’Leary and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

on May 6, 2015.

Deleted: the former is expected to result in annualized benefits of 

Deleted: while the latter is estimated to yield annualized benefits 

of

Deleted: 
4-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

for using, inspecting, repairing, and replacing facility emergency and monitoring 

equipment...”

In contrast, the less stringent SQG training requirements at §262.34(d)(5)(iii) state:

“the generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with 

proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to their 

responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies.” 

No training requirements exist for CESQGs. 

Exhibit 4-1 presents the estimated cost to conduct annual training by generator status. As 

shown in the exhibit, LQGs are assumed to train four technicians and two managers, 

while SQGs are assumed to train two technicians and one manager.99 SQGs are expected 

to conduct informal training that requires approximately four hours of a manager’s time 

to prepare (including pulling together EPA guidance, fact sheets, and relevant facility 

standard operating procedures). Consistent with the more stringent training requirements 

for LQGs under §262.34 (a)(4), LQGs are expected to conduct more formal training 

using an online training course supplemented with facility-specific information. The 

class fee is approximately $125 per trainee.100 The total cost of training includes the cost 

of training materials and the cost of the staff time associated with the training.

EXHIBIT 4-1: ANNUAL COST OF GENERATOR STAFF TRAINING PER FACILITY 

($2012)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

STAFF 

REQUIRING 

TRAINING

TRAINING 

TIME

TRAINING MATERIALS 

REQUIRED

TOTAL COST 

OF TRAINING

SQG 2 technicians, 

1 manager 4 hours 4 hours of manager’s time to develop training $979

LQG 4 technicians, 

2 managers 8 hours

$125 class fee per trainee, 

plus 0.6 hours for 

administrative requirements

$3,360

Based on the training costs presented in Exhibit 4-1, the flexibility afforded SQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less 

to avoid the more stringent LQG training requirements would result in a cost savings of 

$2,381 ($3,360 - $979) per facility.

 

99 Assumptions based on training cost assumptions in U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2008 Final Rule 

Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008.

100 Based on the average cost of online providers, including: http://www.eduwhere.com, 

http://www.thelearningcenter.com, http://www.gvltec.edu, http://www.epaalliance.com, http://www.distanceeducation.org, http://ww.iesshop.ies.ncsu.edu, http:///www.osha.com, http://www.epainstitute.com, and 

http://www.training-classes.com.
4-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

Emergency Response Preparedness

Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency 

response, LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response 

agencies, and update the plan as needed. Similarly, SQGs that accumulate hazardous 

waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less must meet the LQG 

requirements. This EA assumes that all SQGs that would avoid the more stringent LQG 

requirements under the proposed rule have previously prepared a detailed, written 

contingency plan for handling emergencies. Therefore, the cost savings for these 

facilities is the annual cost to review, update, and distribute the contingency plan, which 

is assumed to take approximately four hours of a manager’s time and one hour of 

administrative time. This represents $351 in costs based on the hourly labor costs 

presented in Chapter 3. Thus, the total cost savings associated with the flexibility 

afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings 

for 90 days or less to avoid the more stringent LQG requirements for contingency plan 

updating is approximately $351 per facility per year.

Biennial Reports

Under existing RCRA regulations, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads 

or in containment buildings for 90 days or less must submit biennial reports of their 

hazardous waste generation activity to EPA or State authorities. The fixed costs of 

preparing a biennial report include the time to read the instructions, complete the site ID 

form, submit the report to EPA or State authorities, and maintain a copy of the report for 

three years. EPA estimates that the cost of these activities is approximately $245 per 

facility.101 Additionally, the variable cost of completing each GM form for the BR 

submission is $19.99. As described in Chapter 3, SQGs on average are estimated to 

complete between 4 and 8 GM forms per BR reporting year (one for each unique waste 

stream), which implies an additional $80 to $160 in reporting costs per BR cycle. In 

total, these costs range from $325 to $405 every even-numbered year (or $168 to $209 on 

an annualized basis using a 7 percent discount rate).

Aggregate Benefits of Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements for SQGs

As described above, EPA estimates that 12 facilities could take advantage of the

additional flexibility afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in 

containment buildings for less than 90 days. Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the cost savings 

associated with no longer being subject to the requirements that apply to LQGs for 

personnel training, emergency response preparedness, and biennial reporting. These cost 

savings are reported on an annualized basis per facility and in aggregate. In total, this EA 

estimates that SQGs would experience annualized benefits of $34,800 to $35,300 as a 

result of the proposed drip pad and containment building requirements.

 

101 BR-related costs in this paragraph derived from EPA ICR 0976.16 “2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated 

Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification,” September 2012.
4-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 4-2: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COST SAVINGS FOR DRIP PAD AND 

CONTAINMENT BUILDING REQUIREMENTS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST 

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQGa 12 $0.00 $2,900b $0 $34,800 $34,800

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 12 N/A N/A $0 $34,800 $34,800

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST 

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED 

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQGa 12 $0.00 $2,941c $0 $35,300 $35,300

CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL 12 N/A N/A $0 $35,300 $35,300

Notes:

a. EPA estimates that eight SQGs accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads and four SQGs accumulate 

hazardous waste in containment buildings.

b. The annualized costs savings include $2,381 for training, $351 for contingency plan updating, and 

$168 for biennial reporting in the low-impact scenario.

c. The annualized costs savings include $2,381 for training, $351 for contingency plan updating, and 

$209 for biennial reporting in the high-impact scenario.

INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM CESQGs TO 

LQGs

As outlined in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing to allow CESQGs to send their hazardous 

waste voluntarily to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that 

both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions.102 Under existing 

 

102 The flexibility provided by the proposed rule would allow LQGs to consolidate waste without submitting an application for 

a RCRA Part B permit. This EA assumes that consolidating CESQGs send their hazardous waste to a commercial hazardous 

waste management facility in the baseline. Under this assumption, LQGs receiving CESQG waste under this voluntary 

provision of the rule would not realize a cost savings associated with avoided RCRA Part B permit costs because they do not 

incur these costs in the baseline. The costs of RCRA Part B permitting are described in EPA ICR 1573.13 “Part B Permit 

Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits,” February 2013.
4-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

regulations, a CESQG may either treat or dispose of its hazardous waste on site or ensure 

delivery to an off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility, which can include permitted 

hazardous waste facilities, interim status hazardous waste facilities, municipal solid waste 

facilities, non-municipal non-hazardous waste facilities, and universal waste handlers. 

The existing CESQG regulations do not allow a generator to send its hazardous waste offsite to another generator, unless the receiving generator is also one of the types of 

facilities listed above. In particular, existing RCRA regulations allow an LQG to accept 

waste from its CESQG affiliates only if the LQG has a RCRA storage permit and can 

demonstrate financial assurance for potential Corrective Action and closure/post-closure 

liabilities. The proposed rule would eliminate the permit and financial assurance 

requirements for intra-organizational transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to 

LQGs in order to encourage improved CESQG waste management. This section first 

describes the benefits of intra-organizational transfers for facilities that voluntarily begin 

to consolidate waste in response to the flexibility provided by the proposed rule. Then, 

this section describes the cost savings of this provision for facilities that already manage 

hazardous waste by means of intra-organizational transfers. Information collected by 

EPA suggests that four LQGs are currently permitted to accept CESQG hazardous waste 

for consolidation.103 

Voluntary Adoption of Intra -organizational Tranfsers

Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the 

same organization may result in a net cost savings from reduced management costs (1) at 

the establishment-level for individual CESQG facilities and (2) at the firm-level for 

organizations that manage multiple facilities that could potentially consolidate their 

hazardous waste. At the establishment-level, CESQGs would no longer directly incur 

disposal costs and would only incur costs of transportation to an LQG facility either using 

the organizations’ existing fleet of hazmat vehicles or a hazardous waste transporter 

within their own delivery network.

104

 At the firm-level, organizations would realize costsavings associated with managing waste quantities in bulk. Specifically, industry sources 

estimate that stand-alone CESQG facilities incur an average cost premium of 

approximately 10 percent to dispose of their hazardous waste relative to LQGs.105 

Organizations consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs may also realize a transportation 

cost savings due to the higher transport costs typically incurred by CESQGs on a per-ton 

basis compared to LQGs (see below).

 

103 Based on e-mail communication with Lyn Luben and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on 

December 5, 2013.

104 Assumptions regarding the transportation networks of larger organizations are based on personal communication with Jim 

O’Leary of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on July 30, 2014. The costs of transporting CESQG waste to 

an LQG are estimated in Chapter 3.

105 The 10 percent cost premium represents the average of a range of estimates from 5 to 15 percent, based on personal 

communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 29, 2013. This cost premium is incurred across all management 

methods. 
4-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

The net transportation cost savings associated with consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs 

owned by the same organization reflect two specific factors.106 First, while CESQGs 

typically manage their waste off-site, LQGs manage much more of their hazardous waste 

on-site (83.9 percent according to the 2011 BR data) and therefore, on average, incur 

lower transportation costs than CESQGs. Second, the incremental cost for an LQG to 

ship more waste off-site includes only the variable cost of transporting the additional 

waste (on a per drum basis), since the fixed costs of transportation (e.g., hiring a truck) 

are already incurred in the baseline, while the incremental cost for a CESQG to manage 

waste off-site includes both fixed and variable costs.

Considering both of these factors, this EA estimates the net transportation cost savings 

per CESQG consolidated as the difference between the transportation costs associated 

with a CESQG’s waste in the baseline and the transportation costs associated with that 

waste once consolidated. These transportation costs include a fixed-cost of $44.98 per 

shipment, plus variable transportation costs of $31.84 per drum.107 Based on the 

assumption stated in Chapter 3 that the average CESQG ships two to four 55-gallon 

drums per year, this translates to avoided transportation costs of $109 to $172 per 

CESQG. Once the CESQG’s waste is transferred to an LQG, the cost of transporting it to 

a TSDF includes each of the costs outlined above except for the fixed cost of $44.98 per 

shipment, because the waste from the consolidated CESQG would likely be added to an

existing shipment. Thus, when an LQG ships the CESQG waste off-site, the cost is 

approximately $64 to $127 per consolidated CESQG. As noted above, however, 83.9 

percent of LQG waste is managed on-site. The expected transportation cost for a 

CESQG’s waste once consolidated to an LQG is therefore approximately $10 to $21. 

Subtracting this from the avoided CESQG transport cost yields a net transportation cost 

saving of $98 to $152 per consolidated CESQG.108

As noted above, organizations consolidating their CESQG hazardous waste at LQGs 

would also realize a cost savings associated with a reduction in disposal costs due to the 

10 percent disposal cost premium typically incurred by CESQGs relative to LQGs.109 

The cost savings associated with avoiding this cost premium depend on the method by 

which CESQG hazardous waste is managed, as the per ton cost of managing hazardous 

waste varies by management method. This EA assumes that hazardous waste managed 

by CESQGs would, if consolidated to an LQG, generally be managed using the same 

disposal methods as under the baseline, with the exception of hazardous waste managed 

for reclamation and recovery in the baseline. Because the economic viability of 

reclamation and recovery may depend on a generator’s proximity to reclamation 

 

106 The transportation cost discussion in this paragraph does not address the transportation costs incurred by CESQGs to send 

their hazardous waste to an LQG, as these costs are estimated separately in Chapter 3.

107 RACER 2010 costs inflated to $2012 using GDP implicit price deflator, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

108 Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

109 Personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 29, 2013.
4-8

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

facilities, this EA assumes that waste undergoing reclamation in the baseline would not 

be consolidated. To estimate the disposal costs of the other management methods used 

by CESQGs, this EA applies the weighted average of the most common remaining offsite disposal methods. As described in Chapter 2, the most typical off-site management 

methods among non-LQG facilities include: landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent 

of overall waste); deepwell or underground injection (9 percent); stabilization prior to 

land disposal at another site (7 percent); and incineration (7 percent).110 As shown in 

Exhibit 4-3, the weighted average disposal cost per CESQG across these management 

methods is approximately $253 to $267. This value reflects annual hazardous waste 

generation of approximately 0.31 tons per CESQG (see Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-10), which is 

assumed to be split across two to four 55-gallon drums (see Chapter 3, Other 

Assumptions). The exhibit also shows the cost of disposing of a CESQG’s waste once it 

is consolidated to an LQG. As presented in the exhibit, the estimated $23 to $24 in cost 

savings associated with consolidating to an LQG reflects the avoided cost premium paid 

by CESQGs in the baseline.

 

110 The 2011 BR also lists transfer off-site without treatment or recovery as a common management method for non-LQGs. 

Because this management method may reflect transfer facilities that later send hazardous waste off-site for treatment or 

recovery at another facility, this EA also excludes this management method from the disposal cost calculations in this 

chapter.
4-9

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 4-3: PER FACILITY COST SAVINGS FOR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY A

CESQG ($2012)

MANAGEMENT 

METHOD

PERCENTAGE 

OF NON-LQG 

WASTE 

MANAGED1

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

AVERAGE COST TO 

DISPOSE OF CESQG 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

(PER FACILITY)2

SAVINGS IF 

MANAGED AT 

AN LQG 

INSTEAD OF 

A CESQG3

AVERAGE COST TO 

DISPOSE OF CESQG 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

(PER FACILITY)2

SAVINGS IF 

MANAGED AT 

AN LQG 

INSTEAD OF 

A CESQG3

WASTE 

MANAGED 

BY CESQG

WASTE 

MANAGED 

BY LQG

WASTE 

MANAGED 

BY CESQG

WASTE 

MANAGED 

BY LQG

Incineration 6.6% $1,162 $1,056 $106 $1,176 $1,069 $107

Deepwell or 

Underground 

Injection

8.9% $97 $88 $9 $110 $100 $10

HW Landfill

(with 

stabilization)

6.9% $93 $85 $8 $107 $97 $10

HW landfill

(without 

stabilization)

18.1% $59 $53 $5 $73 $66 $7

WeightedAverage Cost of 

Disposal

- $253 $230 $23 $267 $242 $24

Notes:

1. This EA assumes that waste managed using the most common off-site disposal methods could potentially be 

consolidated at an LQG facility. These methods account for approximately 40.5 percent of total hazardous waste 

management. It is assumed that the remaining 59.5 percent—which may be managed on-site (e.g., sewering), 

transferred off-site with no treatment or recovery, or treated using another method—would not be consolidated 

at another facility.

2. Average disposal costs are estimated for a CESQG facility generating approximately 0.31 tons of hazardous waste 

per year based on the average quantity reported in the 2011 BR data and data provided from the States of 

Maine, New Jersey, and Washington. A facility generating this amount of hazardous waste would likely 

accumulate two to four partially-filled 55-gallon drums per year, assuming an accumulation storage limit of one 

year and an average container capacity of approximately 157 to 313 pounds per drum. The unit costs for the 

management methods presented here are assumed to be the following (without the CESQG cost premium): $1.71

per pound for hazardous waste incineration, $237 per ton for landfilling with stabilization, $134 per ton for 

landfilling without stabilization, and $246 per ton for deepwell or underground injection. These values are 

based on U.S. EPA Office Resource Conservation and Recovery, Unit Cost Compendium, September 26, 2011. The 

costs in this exhibit for each management method also reflect a cost of $12.50 per drum for loading a drum, as 

derived from RACER 2010. 

3. Values may not equal difference between preceding two columns due to rounding.

Facilities that Already Consolidate Hazardous Waste

The intra-organization transfer provision of the proposed rule may also lead to cost 

savings for organizations that already consolidate CESQG hazardous waste at an LQG. 

As noted above, information collected by EPA suggests that four LQGs currently accept 

CESQG waste for consolidation.111 These LQGs would experience two types of cost-

 

111 Based on e-mail communication with Lyn Luben and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on 

December 5, 2013.
4-10

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

savings: (1) the avoided cost to renew their RCRA storage permit and (2) the avoided 

cost to secure financial assurance to address Corrective Action and post-closure 

liabilities. The cost to obtain a RCRA storage permit is very high, which may explain 

why most LQGs do not elect to obtain one. However, for the four permitted facilities 

assumed to accept CESQG waste in the baseline, this is a sunk cost and would not 

represent a cost savings under the rule. The permit-related cost savings for these facilities 

would be limited to the avoided renewal costs for the Part B permit, which expires every 

ten years. The cost to review the regulations and submit the Part B renewal application is 

an estimated $5,212 per facility, or approximately $694 on an annualized basis (using a 7 

percent discount rate).112

In addition, financial assurance costs for potential Corrective Action and closure/postclosure liabilities represent a significant cost for facilities with RCRA storage permits. 

Avoiding these costs would represent a benefit to LQGs that already accept hazardous 

waste from CESQGs operated by the same owners. This EA uses the costs of securing a 

third-party financial instrument (a letter of credit) as a proxy for the burden of obtaining 

financial assurance. Industry sources provided a range of cost estimates for annual 

premiums for securing a letter of credit, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent of Corrective 

Action and closure/post-closure liabilities.113 For the purposes of this analysis, EPA uses 

the midpoint of this range (2 percent). The Corrective Action and closure/post-closure 

liabilities covered by a letter of credit or other financial instrument can vary widely. 

Based on the results of a survey of Corrective Action liabilities reported in EPA’s 2002 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Corrective Action program, EPA estimates that the 

median cost of Corrective Action remediation is approximately $5 million (in 2002 

dollars), which is equivalent to approximately $6.2 million (in 2012 dollars).114 For 

closure/post-closure care, this EA applies the closure/post-closure costs reported in 

Chapter 3 for LQGs that would be required to close as a landfill (approximately 

$604,000). Companies that secure a letter of credit also typically incur an annual 

administrative processing cost of approximately $967.115 Combining these items, the 

 

112 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request 1573.13 "Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, 

and Special Permits," February 2013.

113 These sources include Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council, “Comments on Department of Environmental Protection 

Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations,” September 10, 2007; Mohammad Iqbal and John Collier, ICF, Inc., “Local 

Government Financial Test Economic Analysis,” memorandum to George Garland, U.S. EPA, April 30, 1995; and John 

Quarels and Michael W. Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, “November 29, 2005 Workshop on Financial Assurance—

Comments on Financial Test and Captive Insurance Issues,” memorandum to Leonard Robinson, California Department of 

Toxics Control, November 23, 2005.

114 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, A Study of the Implementation of the RCRA Corrective Action Program, April 2002. This figure 

is inflation-adjusted to $2012 using the Bureau of Economic Analysis' GDP implicit price deflator.

115 The administrative cost estimate is derived from Mohammad Iqbal and John Collier, ICF, Inc., “Local Government 

Financial Test Economic Analysis,” memorandum to George Garland, U.S. EPA, April 30, 1995 and inflation-adjusted to 

$2012 using the GDP implicit price deflator.
4-11

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

total annual cost of securing financial assurance for Corrective Action and closure/postclosure activities is approximately $136,500 per facility.116

The intra-organization transfer provision would result in no additional costs (or benefits) 

for CESQGs that currently consolidate their hazardous waste, as these facilities would 

experience no change in their operations relative to baseline. 

Similar to the cost assessment for the intra-organization transfer provision presented in 

Chapter 3, this assessment of benefits assumes that CESQG consolidation will be limited 

to CESQGs in those states that prohibit or severely restrict the disposal of hazardous 

waste in MSW landfills and the estimated 10 percent of CESQGs in other states that send 

their hazardous waste to a TSDF.117,118

Aggregate Benefits of Intra-organizational Tranfsers

As described in Chapter 3, between 15,626 and 22,411 CESQGs in the potentially 

affected universe could take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision and an 

estimated 2,410 LQGs would receive this waste (in addition to the four LQGs that 

already accept CESQG waste for consolidation). Exhibit 4-4 shows the derivation of the 

net transportation and disposal cost savings associated with intra-organization transfers 

allowed under the rule as well as the cost savings for avoided RCRA storage permit 

renewal and financial assurance costs for LQGs that already consolidate CESQG waste. 

The costs (for LQGs) and cost savings (for CESQGs) are presented as annualized impacts 

per facility and in aggregate. From the perspective of the organizations that own these 

LQGs and CESQGs, the net impact is a cost savings. The waste management activity is 

simply transferred from CESQGs to LQGs. This EA presents this change in the location 

of where management costs are realized as a cost increase for LQGs and a cost savings 

for CESQGs for illustrative purposes. The cost savings realized by CESQGs, however, 

exceed the increase in costs realized by LQGs, leading to a net cost savings. All of the 

benefits associated with intra-organizational transfers are realized on a recurring annual 

basis, with the exception of avoided RCRA storage permit renewal costs. 

 

116 The total annual cost of securing a letter of credit is calculated as follows: $967 in administrative costs + (2% annual 

premium × $6.776 million liability) = $136,500 per facility. The $6.776 million figure in this equation is the sum of the 

Corrective Action and closure/post-closure liabilities presented in the main body text.

117 This 10 percent figure is based on the professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013. 

118 As described in Chapter 3, 90 percent of CESQGs in states that allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste as MSW are 

assumed to manage their hazardous waste in this manner. Because of the relatively low management costs associated with 

MSW disposal, this EA assumes that CESQGs employing this approach in the baseline will continue to manage their hazardous 

waste as MSW following implementation of the rule.
4-12

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 4-4: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COST SAVINGS FOR INTRAORGANIZATION TRANSFERS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST 

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED 

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQGa 2,410 (4)b $0.00 ($1,326)

c $0 ($3,200,000) ($3,200,000)

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 15,626 $0.00 $361d $0 $5,650,000 $5,650,000

TOTAL 18,036 (4)b N/A N/A $0 $2,450,000 $2,450,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQGe 2,410 (4)b $0.00 ($2,213)

f $0 ($5,340,000) ($5,340,000)

SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

CESQG 22,411 $0.00 $439d $0 $9,840,000 $9,840,000

TOTAL 24,821 (4)b N/A N/A $0 $4,490,000 $4,490,000

Notes:

Positive values are a cost savings, whereas negative values in parentheses are a cost increase. All 

aggregate cost savings are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

a. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 6.5

CESQGs in the low impact scenario.

b. In addition to facilities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision of the 

proposed rule, information collected by EPA indicates that 4 LQG facilities already accept CESQG 

waste for consolidation. These facilities may incur cost savings as detailed below.

c. This is a weighted average of the following: For LQGs that do not already consolidate waste: 

facilities would incur an average annual disposal cost of $230 plus transportation costs of $10 for 

CESQG waste that would be managed by an LQG. These costs are multiplied by 6.5 CESQGs per LQG 

in the low impact scenario, for an average annual cost of $1,556 per LQG. This reflects a net 

transport costs savings of $98 per CESQG and a net disposal cost savings of $23 per CESQG (for a 

total cost savings of $121 per consolidated CESQG) for the organization as a whole. For LQGs that 

already consolidate waste: facilities would experience the cost savings of (1) avoided RCRA Part B 

permit renewal costs every 10 years (a cost savings of $5,212, or $694 on an annualized basis, per 

facility) and (2) avoided costs of securing financial assurance for Corrective Action and 

closure/post-closure activities (a total annual cost savings of $136,500 per facility). Combined, 

these represent $137,194 in cost savings. Averaged with the cost for LQGs that do not already 

consolidate the cost increase of $1,326 is estimated as ($1,556 × 2,410 – $137,194 × 4) ÷ 2,414. 

d. This cost savings represents an average annual hazardous waste disposal cost savings of $253 plus 

an average annual transportation cost savings of $109 for CESQG waste that would be managed by 

an LQG voluntarily under the proposed rule.
4-13

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

e. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 9.3

CESQGs in the high impact scenario.

f. See costs in footnote b. For LQGS that do not already consolidate waste, costs are multiplied by 

9.3 CESQGs per LQG in the high impact scenario.

As the exhibit illustrates, the intra-organizational transfer provision of the proposed rule 

yields a total cost savings of between approximately $2.5 and $4.5 million. This range of 

cost savings applies to both a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate, since 

the vast majority of the benefits are incurred on an annual basis. 

GENERATORS THAT TEMPORARILY CHANGE GENERATOR STATUS DUE TO AN 

EPISODIC EVENT

Under the proposed rule, EPA would allow a CESQG or SQG to retain its existing 

regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event that would 

otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent status. This provision would result in a 

cost savings for CESQGs and SQGs that avoid the cost increase associated with such a 

change in generator status. These costs are related to the RCRA generator requirements 

for training, inspections, manifests, contingency plan updating, and biennial reporting. 

The following sections present the costs associated with these waste management 

activities, and also estimate the potential cost savings realized by facilities that experience 

temporary episodic events. All cost and cost savings estimates presented below reflect the 

hourly labor costs reported in Chapter 3. These costs are summarized in Exhibit 4-4 and 

reported in aggregate on an annualized basis in Exhibit 4-5 below.

Training

The RCRA training requirements for LQGs and SQGs are described earlier in this 

chapter in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements. No training 

requirements exist for CESQGs. Based on the training costs presented in Exhibit 4-1, the 

flexibility afforded episodic generators in the proposed rule would result in savings of 

$979 per CESQG avoiding SQG status, $2,381 ($3,360 - $979) for SQGs that avoid LQG 

status, and $3,360 for CESQGs that avoid becoming LQGs.

Inspections

LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage 

areas. This EA assumes that a technician would take one hour to inspect all storage areas 

for an LQG and one hour for an SQG121, which implies a weekly inspection cost of 

approximately $40 per LQG or SQG. In the baseline, if an episodic generator crosses the 

threshold from CESQG to LQG or SQG in a given month, the facility will need to 

conduct inspections until the waste is removed from the site. Based on the LQG 

 

121 LQG inspections may require more time than SQG inspections due to the higher amount of waste generated by the typical 

LQG. However, because this provision of the rule focuses on changes in regulatory status for facilities that generate the 

same amount of waste regardless of their status, the same inspection time is assumed for LQGs and SQGs. 

Deleted: LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct annual 

employee training related to hazardous waste management 

procedures to ensure that staff are able to perform their duties to 

maintain facility compliance with RCRA requirements and respond 

effectively to emergencies. The requirements for LQGs in 

accordance with §262.34(a)(4), which reference Subparts C and D in 

40 CFR Part 265 and §265.16, obligate LQGs to ensure that their 

training program is: ¶

“designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to respond 

effectively to emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency 

procedures, emergency equipment, and emergency systems, 

including, where applicable:(i) Procedures for using, inspecting, 

repairing, and replacing facility emergency and monitoring 

equipment...” ¶

In contrast, the less stringent SQG training requirements at 

§262.34(d)(5)(iii) state:¶

“the generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly 

familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, 

relevant to their responsibilities during normal facility operations 

and emergencies.” ¶

No training requirements exist for CESQGs. ¶

Exhibit 4-3 presents the estimated cost to conduct annual training by 

generator status. As shown in the exhibit, LQGs are assumed to 

train four technicians and two managers, while SQGs are assumed to 

train two technicians and one manager.119 SQGs are expected to 

conduct informal training that requires approximately four hours of a 

manager’s time to prepare (including pulling together EPA 

guidance, fact sheets, and relevant facility standard operating 

procedures). Consistent with the more stringent training 

requirements for LQGs under §262.34 (a)(4), LQGs are expected to 

conduct more formal training using an online training course 

supplemented with facility-specific information. The class fee is 

approximately $125 per trainee.120 The total cost of training 

includes the cost of training materials and the cost of the staff time 

associated with the training.¶

EXHIBIT 4-3: ANNUAL COST OF GENERATOR STAFF 

TRAINING PER FACILITY ($2012)

...
4-14

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

accumulation time limit of 90 days, this EA assumes that any episodic generator 

(otherwise a CESQG) that crosses the LQG threshold removes the waste 90 days after the 

generation event and conducts weekly inspections in the interim. For CESQGs becoming 

SQGs due to episodic generation, this EA assumes that inspections take place for 180 

days (the SQG accumulation time limit). Based on these assumptions, CESQGs that 

cross the LQG threshold incur an additional $517 in inspection costs due to their episodic 

generation activity and CESQGs becoming SQGs as a result of episodic generation incur 

an additional $1,035 in inspection costs. Thus, the cost savings of the rule with respect to 

inspections are $518 per CESQG that avoids LQG status and $1,035 per CESQG that 

avoids SQG status. SQGs that become LQGs because of episodic generation realize no 

cost savings because SQGs are required to conduct inspections in the baseline.

Manifest Training

Based on the RCRA training regulations, this EA assumes that LQGs and SQGs provide 

training to employees every three years on the preparation of hazardous waste 

manifests.122 This EA assumes each facility trains one manager and one technician to 

complete manifests. Employees are expected to receive a four-hour manifest training 

session once every three years. As part of this training, this EA assumes facilities will 

use EPA’s free online hazardous waste manifest video.123 The cost of manifest training 

also includes one hour of a manager’s time to compile EPA’s hazardous waste manifest 

instructions and other training materials. Approximately 0.3 hours of administrative time 

would likely be incurred to schedule the training every three years. Based on these 

estimates, the cost of manifest training is approximately $578 per facility once every 

three years (an annualized cost of $206, using a 7 percent discount rate). CESQGs that 

avoid SQG or LQG status due to this provision of the proposed rule would avoid this cost 

altogether.

Manifests

Under RCRA, LQGs and SQGs are required to prepare a manifest that, among other 

information, includes the RCRA waste codes for each hazardous waste shipment. No 

such requirements exist for CESQGs. This EA estimates that the cost to complete a 

manifest is $9.56 per shipment for SQGs.124 This value is also assumed to apply to 

CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs due to an episodic generation event. With respect 

to the frequency of manifesting, this EA assumes that an episodic generation event 

 

122 Manifest training requirements are specified by RCRA Subtitle C and Department of Transportation regulations. Hazardous 

waste generators must comply with RCRA personnel training requirements at 40 CFR Part 265.16 (for LQGs) and 40 CFR Part 

262.34 (for SQGs).

123 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Manifest System, accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/transportation/manifest/index.htm on December 24, 2012.

124 Manifest costs presented in this paragraph are derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection 

Request Number 801.18 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 2012.
4-15

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

occurring in the baseline may lead a generator that is otherwise a CESQG to submit one 

manifest for the shipment of its non-episodic waste.125 Under the proposed rule, the 

facility would not need to prepare a manifest for this waste and would realize a cost 

savings of $9.56.

Contingency Plan Updating

As described earlier in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements, 

under existing regulations LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local 

response agencies, and update the plan as needed. This EA assumes that all facilities that 

would avoid LQG status under the proposed rule have previously prepared a detailed, 

written contingency plan for handling emergencies (when they surpassed the LQG 

threshold during previous episodic generation events), because such a plan is required of 

all LQGs. Therefore, the cost savings for these facilities is the annual cost to review, 

update, and distribute the contingency plan, which is assumed to take approximately four 

hours of a manager’s time and one hour of administrative time. Thus, the total cost 

savings associated with avoiding LQG status and the associated contingency plan 

updating is approximately $351 per facility per year.

Biennial Reports

Under existing RCRA regulations, LQGs must submit biennial reports of their hazardous 

waste generation activity to EPA or State authorities. As described above, EPA estimates 

the fixed costs of preparing a biennial report to be approximately $245 per facility. 

Additionally, the variable cost of completing each GM form for the BR submission is 

$19.99. As described in Chapter 3, LQGs on average are estimated to complete between 

5 and 17 unique GM forms per BR reporting year, which implies an additional $100 to 

$340 in reporting costs per BR cycle. LQGs incur these costs every even-numbered year. 

In total, these costs range from $345 to $584 (or $178 to $302 on an annualized basis 

using a 7 percent discount rate).

Cost Savings Acr oss Waste Management Activities

Drawing from the cost information summarized in the previous sections, Exhibit 4-5

reports the per facility cost savings associated with the changes in generator status that 

would be avoided under the proposed rule.

 

125 If the facility has waste onsite that had been generated more than 180 days prior, it would need to ship this waste offsite 

to comply with the accumulation time limit.

Deleted: Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, 

preparedness, and emergency response, 

Deleted: This represents $351 in costs based on the hourly labor 

costs presented in Chapter 3.

Deleted: The fixed costs of preparing a biennial report include the 

time to read the instructions, complete the site ID form, submit the 

report to EPA or State authorities, and maintain a copy of the report 

for three years.

Deleted: EPA estimates that the cost of these activities is 

approximately $245 per facility.126
4-16

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 4-5: PER-FACILITY COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH AV OIDING A CHANGE 

FROM A LESS STRINGENT TO A MORE STRINGENT GENERATOR STATUS ($2012)

RCRA 

REQUIREMENT

CHANGE IN GENERATOR STATUS AVOIDED

FREQUENCY

CESQG-TO-SQG CESQG-TO-LQG SQG-TO-LQG

Training $979 $3,360 $2,381 Annual

Weekly 

Inspections $1,035 $518 $0 Annual

Manifest 

Training $578 $578 $0 Every 3 Years

Manifests $10 $10 $0 Annual

Contingency 

Plan Updating $0 $351 $351 Annual

Biennial Reports $0 $345 to $584 $345 to $584 Every 2 Years

Aggregate Benefits of Episodic Generation Provisions

To estimate the total cost savings associated with this rule provision, this EA applies the 

per facility savings in Exhibit 4-5 to the estimated number of eligible generators. As 

described in Chapter 3, this EA estimates that 2,544 facilities (including both CESQGs 

and SQGs) move into a more stringent generator status each year. This value represents 

less than 1 percent of the potentially affected universe. The number of these facilities that 

would be elevated to a higher generator status due to an episodic generation event that 

meets the rule conditions (e.g., the episodic event must occur within a single calendar 

month) is uncertain. Due to this uncertainty, this EA estimates the number of facilities 

qualifying for this provision of the proposed rule as a range. The low end of the range 

assumes that 50 percent of facilities experiencing a change in generator status meet the 

rule conditions (one episodic event per year that lasts no more than a month) and take 

advantage of this provision. The high end of the range assumes that 100 percent of 

affected facilities are able to take advantage of this provision. As reported in Exhibit 4-6, 

based on these assumptions, EPA estimates an aggregate annual cost savings of between 

$3.8 million and $7.7 million for CESQGs and SQGs that could maintain their existing 

regulatory status in the event of an episodic generation event. This range of cost savings 

is similar when applying a 3 percent discount rate or a 7 percent discount rate.127 The 

flexibility afforded episodic generators under the proposed rule would yield annualized

cost savings on a per-facility basis ranging from approximately $2,070 per CESQG 

avoiding SQG status to $4,730 per CESQG avoiding LQG status. This flexibility would 

also yield annualized cost savings of approximately $2,910 to $3,030 per SQG avoiding 

LQG status.

 

127 The discount rate has minimal impact on these benefits. With a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated range is $3.75 to 

$7.66 million. With a 7 percent discount rate, the range is $3.76 to $7.68 million.
4-17

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 4-6: ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COST SAVINGS FOR THE EPISODIC 

GENERATION PROVISION (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE) a

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST 

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 419 $0.00 $2,910c $0 $1,220,000 $1,220,000

CESQGb 854 $0.00 $2,974d $0 $2,540,000 $2,540,000

TOTAL 1,273 N/A N/A $0 $3,760,000 $3,760,000

GENERATOR 

STATUS

[A]

HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

FACILITIES 

LIKELY TO 

INCUR COSTS

[B]

ANNUALIZED COST 

SAVINGS PER FACILITY

AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED

COST SAVINGS TOTAL 

ANNUALIZED 

COST

SAVINGS

[G=E+F]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[D]

ONE-TIME 

COSTS

[E=B×C]

RECURRING 

COSTS

[F=B×D]

LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0

SQG 837 $0.00 $3,034c $0 $2,540,000 $2,540,000

CESQGb 1,707 $0.00 $3,011e $0 $5,140,000 $5,140,000

TOTAL 2,544 N/A N/A $0 $7,680,000 $7,680,000

Notes:

a. See Exhibit 4-5 for unit cost details by waste management activity.

b. This EA assumes that the following changes in generator status would occur but for the regulatory 

flexibility provided by the proposed rule: 264 CESQG-to-LQG and 590 CESQG-to-SQG changes in the 

low impact scenario and 527 CESQG-to-LQG and 1,180 CESQG-to-SQG changes in the high impact 

scenario.

c. The SQG values reflect per facility costs presented above in Exhibit 4-5.

d. This figure is a weighted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 per CESQG that would 

otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,627 per CESQG that would otherwise be elevated to 

LQG status in the low impact scenario. As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 590 CESQGs would 

avoid SQG status under the low-impact scenario and 264 CESQGs would avoid LQG status.

e. This figure is a weighted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 for CESQGs that would 

otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,731 for CESQGs that would otherwise be elevated to 

LQG status in the high impact scenario. As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 1,180 CESQGs 

would avoid SQG status under the high-impact scenario and 527 would avoid LQG status.

NON-QUANTIFIED BENEFITS

In addition to the monetized benefits presented in the previous section, the proposed rule 

may yield a variety of other non-quantifiable benefits. These benefits are summarized 

below for each major rule provision outlined in Chapter 1.
4-18

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

INTRA-ORGANIZATION TRANSFERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM CESQGS TO LQGS

As outlined above, the proposed rule would permit CESQGs to send their hazardous 

waste to an LQG under the control of the same organization, provided that both the 

CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions. In addition to the reduced 

transportation and disposal costs estimated above, allowing CESQGs to send their 

hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization would 

contribute to more environmentally sound management of hazardous waste and reduce 

environmental risks associated with long-term storage of hazardous wastes on site. These 

potential benefits are outlined in more detail below.

 Improved Oversight. The proposed rule would require that LQGs receiving waste 

from CESQGs within the same organization manage the CESQG-generated 

waste in accordance with RCRA LQG requirements. Under these requirements, 

LQGs are subject to more rigorous management conditions (labeling, emergency 

planning, and containment standards) that are more protective of human health 

and the environment than CESQG requirements. As a result, the proposed 

change would improve oversight and management of hazardous waste by 

subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to more rigorous 

management and disposal requirements. Related to these differences in 

requirements, the consolidation of CESQG waste at LQGs owned by the same 

company may lead to more protective management of hazardous waste, as LQGs 

typically have a better understanding of safe management practices and 

implement these practices on a more consistent basis.

 Reduce the Amount of Hazardous Waste Deposited in Subtitle D Landfills.128

Under the proposed rule, CESQGs that dispose of their hazardous waste in 

Subtitle D units (e.g., MSW landfills) in the baseline may send their waste to 

LQGs instead. Because LQGs receiving CESQG hazardous waste must manage 

this waste in a permitted Subtitle C facility, the consolidation of CESQG waste to 

LQGs may, in effect, lead to the diversion of CESQG hazardous waste from 

Subtitle D disposal to Subtitle C disposal. Such a change in the management of 

CESQG hazardous waste would reduce the overall quantity of hazardous waste 

disposed of in Subtitle D units, resulting in improved environmental quality and 

outcomes, particularly associated with landfill leaching. 

 Reduce Risks Associated with Longer Storage Times of Hazardous Wastes at 

CESQG Facilities. Whereas LQGs have up to 90 days to accumulate hazardous 

waste without having to obtain a RCRA storage permit or comply with interim 

status standards, CESQGs may accumulate up to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous 

waste (or up to 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste or up to 100 kilograms of 

 

128 For the purposes of estimating the costs and benefits of the CESQG provision, this EA assumes that CESQGs in states that 

allow the disposal of CESQG waste in Subtitle D facilities will continue to manage their waste in this manner. However, to 

the extent that CESQGs in these states opt to consolidate to an LQG in the same organization, the benefits described here 

would apply.
4-19

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

residues from the cleanup of a spill of acute hazardous waste) without any time 

constraint. The longer storage time of the hazardous waste on site presents a 

greater risk of adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Allowing 

CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same 

organization may reduce the overall time that CESQG hazardous waste is 

accumulated on site, further reducing the potential risk to human health and the 

environment.

 Reduced Liability Risk. Organizations that opt to transfer their CESQG 

hazardous waste to LQGs within the organization will likely realize a reduction 

in liability risk. Because the transferred waste would be managed at facilities 

with more protective safeguards than under the baseline, the likelihood of an 

environmental accident would be lower, which would reduce the organization’s 

expected liabilities. This reduction in liabilities could lead to cost savings 

associated with lower legal costs and lower insurance costs. 

DOCUMENTATION OF NEGATIVE OR NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATIONS

The proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all hazardous 

waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste is found not to be a 

RCRA hazardous waste. Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs maintain 

documentation of determinations only when they determine that a material is a hazardous 

waste.

This proposed requirement would result in benefits associated with more efficient facility 

inspections and more appropriate and accurate waste determinations. With respect to the 

former, the documentation required of SQGs and LQGs under the rule would provide 

facility inspectors with supporting information for negative determinations, allowing 

them to more easily and efficiently assess the reasonableness of potentially questionable 

determinations. This provision of the proposed rule may therefore result in time savings 

for many inspections, freeing up labor resources to allow state agencies to conduct more 

inspections and/or to reallocate resources to other productive activities. The lack of 

documentation for negative determinations under current regulation in many cases 

prolongs the review of waste streams that generators determine are not hazardous. 

Requiring documentation for negative determinations would also provide SQGs and 

LQGs with an incentive to make more accurate determinations, as the documentation 

would make their determination processes more open to facility inspectors. These 

improved determination processes may reduce the volume of hazardous waste 

inappropriately identified and managed as non-hazardous waste. This change in facility 

behavior would reduce risks to human health and the environment and may further 

improve the efficiency of facility inspections, as inspectors would likely identify fewer 

waste streams with negative determinations that are questionable.
4-20

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

SQG RE-NOTIFICATION

EPA’s proposal that SQGs re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities 

every other year would improve the ability of EPA and the states to perform compliance 

monitoring of regulated facilities. The data available to EPA would become more 

accurate and up-to-date, allowing the Agency to observe the changes in facilities’

operations over time and therefore conduct more precise and meaningful reviews of their 

waste generation activity. Similarly, the information collected through re-notification 

will help EPA and the states target their outreach, enforcement, and compliance 

assistance efforts. For example, the information collected from re-notifications may help 

determine which facilities warrant greater oversight. This more targeted enforcement 

approach may reduce the risk of environmental damage from the mismanagement of 

hazardous waste.

Re-notification may also result in time savings associated with assembling data for 

analyses performed by the Agency and the states on a periodic basis. For example, 

information collected from re-notifications may inform analyses of regulatory burdens to 

the regulated community and the benefits of RCRA regulations, or serve as data inputs in 

public reports on hazardous waste generation and management. 

MARKING AND LABELING OF CONTAINERS FOR SQGS AND LQGS

As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark containers with 

(1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the 

containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s 

contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).

This change would help increase awareness of a container’s contents among the various 

individuals in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent improper 

treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, due to the 

increased awareness associated with enhanced labeling, generator employees may handle 

hazardous waste with greater care, potentially leading to a reduction in the number of 

accidental spills and other incidents that might jeopardize the health and safety of site 

employees and the nearby population. 

The more detailed information that EPA proposes for display on container labels would

also enhance the ability of emergency responders to limit adverse impacts from exposure 

to hazardous materials. Emergency medical technicians would be able to treat those 

exposed to the hazardous waste in a manner specific to the waste, limiting exposure time, 

preventing lethal outcomes, and improving the time and chances of recovery. Fire fighters 

may be able to extinguish fires and contain spills more quickly by using reactive 

chemicals designed specifically for the waste in question. The use of these chemicals may 

prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters and minimize exposure and 

environmental damage associated with fires, spills, and other hazardous waste incidents.
4-21

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

LQG CLOSURE CONDITIO NS

With respect to facility closure, EPA is proposing that LQGs accumulating hazardous 

wastes in containers meet the landfill closure requirements if they cannot demonstrate 

that contaminated soils can be removed or decontaminated. This provision of the 

proposed rule would ensure that facilities are closed in a manner that reflects the 

additional risk associated with leaving hazardous waste (or materials containing 

hazardous constituents) in place at closure. Under current regulation, LQGs that 

accumulate hazardous waste in containers may close accumulation areas with 

contamination in place without implementing measures to contain the waste. Relative to 

these baseline closure requirements, the closure requirements for landfills are much more 

stringent and designed to contain any contaminants left in place at closure, thereby 

preventing potential releases to the environment. 

The Agency is also proposing that LQGs notify EPA of their intention to close waste 

accumulation unit(s) at least 30 days prior to closure as well as notify EPA when the units 

have been closed. These requirements would a) provide regulatory authorities with 

knowledge of the location and specifics of hazardous waste sites planned for closure; b) 

allow the authorities to confirm that the unit is properly closed in compliance with the 

applicable closure regulations; and c) allow the authorities to monitor the unit during the 

post-closure period, alerting regulators in cases where generators may have abandoned 

the site or closed it improperly, or where other complications may have developed at the 

site. This, in turn, will prevent releases of harmful substances to the environment and 

adverse impacts to human health and the environment.

STRENGTHENING OF THE PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION, AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE CONDITIONS FOR LQGS

Building on the current preparedness requirements for LQGs, EPA is proposing that all 

new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to local emergency 

management authorities. While LQGs are already required to provide a copy of their 

contingency plans to local emergency response agencies, the length of these documents 

may make it difficult for first responders to identify key information in the limited time 

available when an emergency occurs. 

The contingency plan executive summaries called for in the proposed rule would allow 

first responders to more easily discern the layout of a facility, the location of hazardous 

wastes, what those wastes are, and what chemicals to use (or not use) near those wastes. 

To the extent that first responders are able to respond more quickly and effectively based 

on this information, this provision of the proposed rule may prevent lethal outcomes and 

injuries among fire fighters, other first responders, and facility employees, and may also 

reduce exposure risk for local populations and ecosystems. 
4-22

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

GENERATORS THAT TEMPORARILY CHANGE GENERATOR STATUS DUE TO AN 

EPISODIC EVENT

As described above, EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to maintain its 

existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which 

the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would 

otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent regulatory status. In addition to the cost 

savings associated with avoided SQG- or LQG-specific activities (as estimated above), 

this provision of the rule may result in additional cost savings associated with facilities 

maintaining a more consistent RCRA generator status over time. Changing status from 

one month to the next may impose an administrative burden on facilities as they re-visit 

the requirements for different generator status categories and implement measures to 

ensure compliance. If facilities are able to maintain a more consistent generator status 

over time, they would not need to re-visit the generator requirements as frequently or 

make as many changes to their internal controls to ensure compliance with RCRA.

TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters 

storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed 

requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be 

marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents 

of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a 

container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 

As discussed in the marking and labeling section above, including this information on the 

container would alert facility workers of the container’s contents and its potential 

hazards, which may help prevent the improper treatment of this material. Displaying this 

information on the containers may also help first responders limit exposure to local 

populations and ecosystems in the event of a fire or other emergency. 

BIENNIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing two substantive changes to the biennial 

reporting requirements for LQGs under the rule. First, the Agency is proposing that 

LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, 

not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing 

that LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of 

whether the waste was transported off-site during the reporting year. Both of these 

changes would make the BR more complete and consistent, allowing the Agency and the 

states to base their policy, programmatic, and enforcement decisions on more reliable 

hazardous waste generation and management data. 

PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTE

EPA is also proposing to require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from 

land disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that 

identify the contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a 
4-23

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

container’s contents. As described above, including this information on containers may 

help prevent the improper treatment or transportation of hazardous waste, and may also 

help first responders limit exposures to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of a fire or 

other emergency.

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES (VOLUNTARY)

The proposed rule would also include flexibility for LQGs to apply for a waiver from the 

hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement. Under this requirement, 

containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) 

from a facility's property line. In some settings, however, particularly in urban 

environments, LQGs may experience difficulty in meeting this requirement. For example, 

meeting this requirement may not be possible if the width of a facility is 100 feet or less 

or if a facility’s operations have expanded such that it no longer has the ability to 

accumulate ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility’s 

property line. 

With a waiver from this requirement, LQGs would avoid a variety of costs associated 

with the 50-foot limit. For example, some LQGs would avoid the costs of relocation or 

purchasing additional property to meet the 50-foot requirement. In addition, facilities that 

would otherwise reconfigure their layout to meet the 50-foot requirement may be able to 

structure their operations to streamline the process flow at the facility, rather than 

structure their operations based on the required location of ignitable or reactive waste. 

This more optimal facility structure would likely result in operational cost savings for 

affected facilities and would provide greater flexibility for meeting other requirements 

(e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations). The option of 

obtaining a waiver may also allow some businesses to operate in geographic areas where 

they are unable to operate under current regulation.
5-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CHAPTER 5 | SUMMARY OF REGULATORY BENEFITS AND COSTS

This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator 

Improvements Rule as estimated in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA. Specifically, this 

chapter calculates the net benefits of the proposed rule (i.e., benefits minus costs). From 

an economic perspective, the proposed rule would enhance economic efficiency if 

benefits (cost savings) exceed costs. Focusing solely on these or other benefit-cost 

metrics provides an incomplete view of the effects of the proposed rule, however, 

because many positive impacts of the rule cannot feasibly be monetized, such as 

improvements in emergency response associated with the rule’s enhanced marking and 

labeling requirements.

Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 report the net benefits of the proposed rule using discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent, respectively. The exhibits present net benefits separately for the 

mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule and also examine net benefits for the 

mandatory and voluntary provisions combined. As indicated in both exhibits, benefits 

were not monetized for many of the rule’s provisions because sufficient data were not 

available. Net benefits for these provisions are therefore presented as negative. These 

negative values, however, do not reflect the benefits presented in Chapter 4 that EPA was 

unable to monetize. In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits 

underestimate the net benefits associated with the rule’s mandatory provisions.

For the voluntary provisions of the rule, this EA estimates positive net benefits (cost 

savings) ranging from $5.4 to $6.7 million per year based on discount rates of both 3 and 

7 percent.129 For both the low impact and high impact scenarios, the positive net benefits 

for these provisions reflect, in part, the net benefits associated with episodic generation. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, organizations that opt into the episodic generation provision 

are expected to experience cost savings associated with reduced transportation and 

hazardous waste disposal costs. The net benefits of this provision are also expected to be 

much higher under the high impact scenario than the low impact scenario. This 

difference reflects the assumption in this EA (stated in Chapter 4) that 50 percent of 

episodic generators would meet the rule conditions for taking advantage of this provision 

(i.e., no more than one episodic event per year, which lasts no more than one calendar 

month) under the low impact scenario while all episodic generators are assumed to meet

these conditions under the high impact scenario.

 

129 This EA was not able to monetize the benefits associated with the voluntary provision related to waivers for ignitable and 

reactive wastes. 

Deleted: mandatory 

Deleted: $6.8
5-2

EXHIBIT 5-1. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (3% DISCOUNT RATE)

REQUIREMENT

LOW-END SCENARIO HIGH END SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $386,000 

Not monetized --

$1,130,000 

Not monetized --

Re-notification $748,000 $960,000 

Labeling $3,160,000 $6,270,000 

Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 

Emergency Response Preparedness $416,000 $807,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 

BR Requirements $294,000 $931,000 

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,200 $35,200

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,220,000 $34,800 ($5,190,000) $12,000,000 $35,200 ($12,000,000)

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $562,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,280,000 $4,490,000 $212,000 

Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,750,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,660,000 $6,600,000 

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ($50) $88,000 Not monetized ($88,000)

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $771,000 $6,200,000 $5,430,000 $5,440,000 $12,200,000 $6,720,000 

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $5,990,000 $6,230,000 $240,000 $17,400,000 $12,200,000 ($5,230,000)

Notes:

All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
5-3

EXHIBIT 5-2. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (7% DISCOUNT RATE)

REQUIREMENT

LOW-END SCENARIO HIGH END SCENARIO

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS

ANNUALIZED 

BENEFITS NET BENEFITS

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Negative Determinations $403,000

Not monetized --

$1,130,000 

Not monetized --

Re-notification $762,000 $960,000 

Labeling $3,370,000 $6,270,000 

Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 

Emergency Response Preparedness $420,000 $807,000

Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 

BR Requirements $299,000 $931,000 

Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,300 $35,300

SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,480,000 $34,800 ($5,440,000) $11,900,000 $35,300 ($11,900,000)

VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Intra-organizational Transfers $584,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,320,000 $4,490,000 $173,000 

Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,760,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,680,000 $6,610,000

Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ($50) $95,700 Not monetized ($95,700)

SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $793,000 $6,200,000 $5,410,000 $5,490,000 $12,200,000 $6,690,000

MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED

TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary 

Provisions Combined $6,270,000 $6,240,000 ($28,000) $17,400,000 $12,200,000 ($5,210,000)

Notes:

All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
5-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

In addition, the values in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 show that the estimated net benefits of the 

voluntary intra-organizational transfer provision are positive. While there is a transfer of 

costs from CESQGs to LQGs, the net benefits of the provision are positive for the 

organization as a whole. Furthermore, because not all benefits associated with CESQG 

consolidation can be monetized in this EA, EPA estimates that the actual benefits are 

even larger. Therefore, EPA expects that eligible organizations are likely to take 

advantage of this provision. As described in Chapter 4, these qualitative benefits include 

reduced liability risk for organizations that opt to consolidate waste because the 

transferred waste would be managed at facilities with more protective safeguards. In 

additional, this voluntary provision would provide the following social welfare benefits: 

1) Improved oversight by subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to 

more rigorous management and disposal requirements in accordance with RCRA 

LQG requirements; 

2) Reducing the amount of hazardous waste deposited in Subtitle D landfills;130 and

3) Reduced risks associated with longer storage times of hazardous waste at 

CESQG facilities in accordance with the 90 day storage limit for LQGs, lowering 

the potential risk to human health and the environment.

 

130 For the purposes of estimating the costs and benefits of the CESQG provision, this EA assumes that most CESQGs in states 

that allow the disposal of CESQG waste in Subtitle D facilities will continue to manage their waste in this manner. 

However, to the extent that CESQGs in these states opt to consolidate to an LQG in the same organization, more hazardous 

waste would be managed in permitted Subtitle C facilities, resulting in improved environmental quality and outcomes, 

particularly associated with landfill leaching.
6-1

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

CHAPTER 6 | EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter summarizes EPA’s 

analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the 

proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following 

issues: 

 Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of 

costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;

 Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on 

small entities; 

 Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on 

employment; 

 Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect 

to unfunded mandates; 

 Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty; 

 Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to 

include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities; 

 Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income 

populations;

 Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule 

on the health of children; 

 Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, 

supply, and distribution; and

 Joint impacts of rules: considers the combined effect of the proposed rule with 

other regulations affecting the healthcare sector.

REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by 

Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine 

whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the 

full requirements of the Executive Order. EO 12866 defines “significant regulatory 

action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
6-2

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 

tribal governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of EO 12866, as affirmed in EO 13563, the Agency has determined 

that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.

Findings for the EA indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in aggregate 

annualized costs of approximately $5.5 to $11.9 million for the mandatory provisions of 

the rule, and $6.3 to $17.4 million when factoring in the voluntary provisions, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. This full range is below the $100 million threshold established 

under part 3(f)(1) of the Order. The proposed rule is therefore not considered to be an 

economically significant action. 

In addition to calling for assessment of regulatory costs, the Executive Order also requires 

Federal agencies to assess benefits and, “recognizing that some costs and benefits are 

difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.”131 As described in Chapter 4 

of this Assessment, monetization of all the rule’s benefits was not possible given 

limitations in the available data. This Assessment, however, estimates that the proposed 

rule would lead to $6.2 to $12.2 million in quantifiable benefits per year under the 

voluntary CESQG consolidation and episodic generator provisions. In addition, 

requirements related to labeling/marking, documentation of negative hazardous waste 

determinations, LQG closure, and other rule provisions would help ensure that hazardous 

waste is managed in such a way as to minimize risks to human health and the 

environment.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other 

statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 

 

131 See Section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866. 

Deleted: $12.0
6-3

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. Based on EPA’s RFA/SBREFA analytic guidance, a rule is not expected to 

result in a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities if the 

costs of the regulation for a facility are less than 1 percent of annual revenues.132 

Ideally, assessment of the rule’s small entity impacts would identify specific entities 

affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities. As described in 

previous chapters of this Assessment, however, detailed data necessary for the assessment 

of regulatory impacts for individual facilities are not readily available. In the absence of 

such information, this Assessment uses the average cost impacts by generator status in 

conjunction with revenue and employment data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 

2007 Census of Agriculture for industries affected by the rule to gauge potential small 

entity impacts. The steps in this process are as follows:

1) Identify most heavily represented industries among small entities. To identify 

the most common industries among small entities affected by the rule, EPA 

consulted data from two surveys conducted in 1985, a National Small Quantity 

Hazardous Waste Survey and a Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D 

Establishments, in addition to several state and local studies of CESQGs.133 

Although some of these data are more than 25 years old, they represent the most 

comprehensive data available on SQGs and CESQGs. EPA used this information 

to identify industries with the largest number of hazardous waste generators in 

the SQG and CESQG universe. This list broadly includes the following industry 

groups: (a) pesticide end-users and application services; (b) industrial chemical 

manufacturers; (c) wood preservation; (d) pharmaceutical and other chemical and 

chemical product manufacturers; (e) dry cleaners and industrial launderers; (f) 

funeral services and crematories; (g) photography; (h) textile manufacturing; (i) 

vehicle maintenance; (j) metal manufacturing; (k) construction; (l) printing; (m) 

professional cleaning services; (n) hospitals; and (o) wholesale paints and 

chemicals. For this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs are not owned by small

entities.

2) Estimate percentage of facilities that are small, by industry. To assess the 

prevalence of small entities within the industries identified in Step 1, EPA relied 

on NAICS-level data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture and calculated the percentage of facilities, by NAICS code, owned by 

facilities below the Small Business Administration (SBA) small size standard 

 

132 U.S. EPA, Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, November 2006.

133 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, February 1984; U.S. EPA, 

Office of Solid Waste, Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of the CESQG Rulemaking, June 1996; U.S. EPA, Office of Solid 

Waste, Generation and Management of CESQG Waste, July 1994.
6-4

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

threshold (see Exhibit 6-1). SBA’s small size standards vary by industry and 

may be based on either a firm’s annual revenues or number of employees. The 

2007 Economic Census reports the number of firms and number of 

establishments by revenue-based or employee-based categories (e.g., 

establishments with 50 to 99 employees). In those cases where one of the 

categories is below the SBA threshold, all entities within that category are 

considered small. Similarly, entities in categories above the SBA threshold are 

not considered small. For some NAICS codes, the SBA small size threshold is 

between the category boundaries used by the Economic Census. In these cases, 

entities within each category are assumed to be evenly distributed between small 

firms and large firms. 

Ideally, this analysis would apply the industry-specific percentages estimated in 

this step to the SQGs and CESQGs in the affected universe to derive estimates of 

the number of small entities in the universe. Performing this calculation, 

however, is not possible because the SQGs and CESQGs in the regulated 

universe are not broken out by industry.134 Therefore, Exhibit 6-1 reports the 

percentage of facilities in the industries identified in Step 1 that are small 

according to the SBA thresholds. With the exception of five industries, more 

than 60 percent of facilities in each NAICS code are considered to be small.135

3) Estimate average annual revenues of affected small entities. EPA also used the 

Economic Census and Census of Agriculture data to calculate the average annual 

revenue per small entity in the industries identified in Step 1 by dividing the total 

revenues of entities meeting the SBA definition by the total number of 

establishments owned by those entities within each industry. Exhibit 6-1 reports 

the small business size standard for each NAICS code, the percentage of facilities 

that are considered to be small, and the average annual revenues per small 

facility.

4) Estimate regulatory costs per small entity. The average incremental costs of the 

rule per small entity are estimated based on the cost analysis presented in Chapter 

3. As an upper bound, this regulatory flexibility analysis reports the total per 

facility costs for SQGs and CESQGs, excluding the voluntary provisions of the 

rule, for a hypothetical small facility that incurs costs under every provision of 

the rule. In practice, however, many small entities will incur costs associated 

 

134 The data sources in Step 1 provide an estimate of the number of SQG and CESQG facilities broken out by industry group; 

however, these data are more than 25 years old and there have been significant changes in the composition of industry 

groups as well as the number of establishments in each industry. While these data are helpful for identifying the industries 

most heavily represented among SQGs and CESQGs, these data would be less reliable for developing precise counts of the 

current number of SQGs and CESQGs by industry.

135 These five industries include: hospitals; truck leasing; passenger car rental; industrial launderers; and general freight 

trucking.
6-5

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

with only a subset of the rule provisions. For example, between 25,500 and 

33,800 small facilities (of a total of 338,700 to 529,100 SQGs and CESQGs)136

are anticipated to be impacted by the negative hazardous waste determination 

requirement on an annual basis. Based on this approach, EPA estimates an upper 

bound annualized cost of $131 to $298 per facility (excluding the rule’s voluntary 

provisions) for small facilities (SQGs and CESQGs), excluding transfer facilities,

affected by each mandatory provision of the rule using a 7 percent discount rate. 

Since there are only a small number of CESQG and SQG transfer facilities in the 

regulated universe and their NAICS codes are known, this EA presents a separate 

cost range for transfer facilities and compares this range against the average 

annual revenues for these establishments. For small transfer facilities, the upper 

bound annualized cost is $720 to $1,988 per facility. 

For small facilities not affected by every provision of the rule, these estimates 

overstate the potential cost impacts. In addition, many SQGs and CESQGs that 

take advantage of the voluntary provisions of the rule are anticipated to 

experience a net cost savings relative to the baseline. These provisions are 

excluded from this regulatory flexibility analysis. 

EXHIBIT 6-1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

RULE 

NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARD1 PERCENTAGE 

OF FACILITIES 

THAT ARE 

SMALL2

AVERAGE REVENUE 

PER SMALL 

FACILITY2

($2012, MILLIONS)

REVENUE

(MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS)

NUMBER OF 

EMPLOYEES

115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and 

Cultivating $7.0 99.9% $0.1

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 500 100.0% $154.2

236 Construction of Buildings $33.5 97.4% $2.5

237 Heavy and Civil Engineering 

Construction $33.5 93.8% $4.7

313110 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 500 97.6% $19.4

313210 Broadwoven Fabric Mills 1,000 99.6% $13.7

313220 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli 

Machine Embroidery 500 100.0% $3.3

313230 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 500 98.4% $20.0

313240 Knit Fabric Mills 500 99.2% $6.3

313310 Textile and Fabric Finishing 

Mills 1,000 100.0% $5.6

313320 Fabric Coating Mills 1,000 100.0% $13.2

314110 Carpet and Rug Mills 500 93.4% $23.9

 

136 As noted above, this Assessment assumes that small entities affected by the rule include SQGs and CESQGs only.
6-6

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 6-1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

RULE 

NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARD1 PERCENTAGE 

OF FACILITIES 

THAT ARE 

SMALL2

AVERAGE REVENUE 

PER SMALL 

FACILITY2

($2012, MILLIONS)

REVENUE

(MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS)

NUMBER OF 

EMPLOYEES

314120 Curtain and Linen Mills 500 99.9% $2.2

314910 Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 500 99.9% $1.7

314994 Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire 

Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 1,000 100.0% $23.7

314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile 

Product Mills 500 99.8% $1.8

321114 Wood Preservation 500 100.0% $12.3

322110 Pulp Mills 750 86.0% $120.9

322121 Paper (except Newsprint) Mills 750 73.0% $121.3

322122 Newsprint Mills 750 100.0% $68.6

322130 Paperboard Mills 750 85.6% $123.8

323111 Commercial Printing (except 

Screen and Books) 500 96.4% $8.7

323113 Commercial Screen Printing 500 99.9% $1.7

323117 Books Printing 500 98.2% $6.8

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $1,498.4

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1,000 $15.3

325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment 

Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $30.9

32518 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing 1,000 99.4% $34.5

325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $74.7

325199 All Other Basic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 99.1% $102.8

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing 500 99.6% $37.8

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation 

Manufacturing 750 95.1% $65.8

325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing 500 99.6% $10.4

326211 Tire Manufacturing (except 

Retreading) 1,000 84.7% $41.0

326212 Tire Retreading 500 100.0% $3.4

326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and 

Belting Manufacturing 500 98.1% $13.7
6-7

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 6-1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

RULE 

NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARD1 PERCENTAGE 

OF FACILITIES 

THAT ARE 

SMALL2

AVERAGE REVENUE 

PER SMALL 

FACILITY2

($2012, MILLIONS)

REVENUE

(MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS)

NUMBER OF 

EMPLOYEES

326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing 

for Mechanical Use 500 99.0% $13.6

326299 All Other Rubber Product 

Manufacturing 500 99.5% $9.4

327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and 

Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 750 99.3% $1.8

327120 Clay Building Material and 

Refractories Manufacturing 750 99.6% $9.5

327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $68.3

327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass 

and Glassware Manufacturing 750 97.2% $7.3

327213 Glass Container Manufacturing 750 97.7% $78.9

327215 Glass Product Manufacturing 

Made of Purchased Glass 500 99.5% $6.5

327310 Cement Manufacturing 750 100.0% $38.2

327320 Ready-Mix Concrete 

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $6.1

327331 Concrete Block and Brick 

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $7.2

327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 500 100.0% $9.0

327390 Other Concrete Product 

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $5.5

327410 Lime Manufacturing 500 98.8% $21.9

327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $20.5

327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing 500 99.1% $13.2

327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product 

Manufacturing 500 100.0% $2.0

327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and 

Earth Manufacturing 500 99.6% $9.7

327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing 750 99.0% $19.5

327999

All Other Miscellaneous 

Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing

500 100.0% $7.2

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and 

Ferroalloy Manufacturing 1,000 92.7% $172.9
6-8

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 6-1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

RULE 

NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARD1 PERCENTAGE 

OF FACILITIES 

THAT ARE 

SMALL2

AVERAGE REVENUE 

PER SMALL 

FACILITY2

($2012, MILLIONS)

REVENUE

(MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS)

NUMBER OF 

EMPLOYEES

424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies 

Merchant Wholesalers 100 66.9% $4.0

483211 Inland Water Freight 

Transportation 500 92.3% $10.3

484110 General Freight Trucking, Local $25.5 99.5% $1.0

484121 General Freight Trucking, 

Long-Distance, Truckload $25.5 89.6% $1.8

484122

General Freight Trucking, 

Long-Distance, Less Than 

Truckload

$25.5 39.6% $1.6

484210 Used Household and Office 

Goods Moving $25.5 95.7% $1.0

484220 Specialized Freight (except 

Used Goods) Trucking, Local $25.5 98.1% $1.1

484230

Specialized Freight (except 

Used Goods) Trucking, 

Long-Distance

$25.5 77.6% $2.0

532111 Passenger Car Rental $35.5 35.4% $0.7

532112 Passenger Car Leasing $35.5 94.8% $1.3

532120

Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV 

(Recreational Vehicle) Rental 

and Leasing

$35.5 35.2% $1.6

541921 Photography Studios, Portrait $7.0 61.5% $0.3

541922 Commercial Photography $7.0 98.7% $0.5

561710 Exterminating and Pest Control 

Services $10.0 84.7% $0.5

561720 Janitorial Services $16.5 95.6% $0.5

561730 Landscaping Services $7.0 96.9% $0.6

561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning 

Services $5.0 97.6% $0.3

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment 

and Disposal $38.5 57.4% $3.8

622 Hospitals $34.5 24.9% $16.1

712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens $25.5 99.3% $0.7

713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs $14.0 90.1% $1.3

811111 General Automotive Repair $7.0 97.2% $0.5
6-9

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EXHIBIT 6-1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

RULE 

NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARD1 PERCENTAGE 

OF FACILITIES 

THAT ARE 

SMALL2

AVERAGE REVENUE 

PER SMALL 

FACILITY2

($2012, MILLIONS)

REVENUE

(MILLIONS OF 

DOLLARS)

NUMBER OF 

EMPLOYEES

811112 Automotive Exhaust System 

Repair $7.0 97.6% $0.4

811113 Automotive Transmission Repair $7.0 99.4% $0.5

811118

Other Automotive Mechanical 

and Electrical Repair and 

Maintenance

$7.0 93.0% $0.5

811121 Automotive Body, Paint and 

Interior Repair and Maintenance $7.0 96.6% $0.8

811191 Automotive Oil Change and 

Lubrication Shops $7.0 66.5% $0.6

811198 All Other Automotive Repair 

and Maintenance $7.0 88.7% $0.4

812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral 

Services $7.0 84.6% $0.8

812220 Cemeteries and Crematories $19.0 81.1% $0.4

812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and 

Drycleaners $7.0 96.1% $0.2

812320 Dry-cleaning and Laundry 

Services (except Coin-Operated) $5.0 94.5% $0.3

812331 Linen Supply $30.0 62.8% $2.9

812332 Industrial Launderers $35.5 37.5% $2.5

812921 Photofinishing Laboratories 

(except One-Hour) $19.0 94.2% $0.5

812922 One-Hour Photofinishing $14.0 100.0% $0.1

Notes:

1. U. S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 

Classification System Codes, effective July 22, 2013, accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards.

2. Based on analysis of data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census (accessed at 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census07) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture (accessed 

at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php). 

As Exhibit 6-1 shows, the average annual revenues of small entities in the affected 

universe range from approximately $129,000 (for soil preparation, planting, and 

cultivating) to over $1 billion (for petrochemical manufacturing). As described in Step 4, 

above, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be between $131 and 

$298 on a per facility basis for SQGs and CESQGs, excluding transfer facilities (using a 
6-10

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

7 percent discount rate).137 Therefore, at most, the costs of the proposed rule represent 

between 0.10 and 0.23 percent of annual revenues for CESQGs and SQGs. For CESQG 

and SQG transfer facilities, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be 

between $720 and $1,988 (using a 7 percent discount rate) compared with average annual 

revenues of approximately $3.8 million for a small business.

138

 Therefore, at most, the 

costs of the proposed rule represent less than 0.1 percent of annual revenues for CESQG 

and SQG transfer facilities. Since the incremental impact to the smallest facilities in 

terms of revenue is less than 1 percent of average annual revenues, the proposed rule is 

not expected to have a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities.

As shown in the presentation of year-by-year costs in Chapter 3, the costs of the proposed 

rule are estimated to be higher in the first year than in later years. These relatively high

costs in the first year reflect the one-time costs associated with the rule’s marking/

labeling requirements and the costs of documenting non-hazardous waste determinations 

for existing wastes. To assess whether these higher costs for the first year represent a 

significant impact to a substantial number of small entities that year, upper bound costs 

similar to those presented above for annualized costs were developed for costs incurred in 

the first year of the rule. For a hypothetical small entity (SQG or CESQG) that incurs the 

first-year costs of all of the rule’s mandatory provisions, the costs of the rule range from 

$211 to $507. This range represents 0.16 to 0.39 percent of annual revenues per facility 

for the industry with the lowest per-facility revenues in Exhibit 6-1, further suggesting 

that the rule would not lead to a significant economic impact for a substantial number of 

small entities.

139

 

 

137 On a per facility basis, the average incremental cost of the proposed rule is between $41 and $155 for CESQGs, between 

$131 and $298 for SQGs, and between $212 and $3,333 for LQGs (using a 7 percent discount rate). These values assume 

that a CESQG, SQG, or LQG will incur the costs of all the rule provisions affecting their generator category. In practice, 

each rule provision will affect only subset of CESQGs, SQGs, and/or LQGs. The cost ranges presented here therefore 

represent upper bounds that may overstate costs for many individual facilities. For any LQGs that might be owned by small 

entities, the $212 to $3,333 range represents between 0.16 and 2.58 percent of annual revenues for a small facility. 

However, the bulk of these costs are attributable to the cost of closure as a landfill. As described in Chapter 3, three or 

fewer LQGs are anticipated to close as a landfill each year. Excluding closure costs for LQGs, the costs of the proposed rule

represent between 0.16 and 0.18 percent of annual revenues (or $212 to $237 per LQG). Therefore, even if LQG costs are 

used in place of costs for SQGs and CESQGs, the rule does not result in a significant impact for a substantial number of 

small entities. 

138 Transfer facilities generally self-report in biennial reports submitted to EPA using NAICS code 562211 (Hazardous Waste 

Treatment and Disposal). 

139 For a hypothetical LQG that incurs the costs of all of the rule’s provisions, the costs of the rule during the first year range 

from $860 to $4,090 (using a 7 percent discount rate). However, the bulk of these costs are attributable to the cost of 

closure as a landfill. As described in Chapter 3 and in a previous footnote, three or fewer LQGs are anticipated to close as a 

landfill each year. Excluding closure costs for LQGs, the costs of the rule for an LQG affected by all of the other rule 

provisions represent between 0.67 and 0.77 percent (or $860 to $994) of annual revenues in the first year of the rule for the 

agricultural sector and photofinishing establishments (the two industries in Exhibit 6-1 with the lowest revenue per 

facility). For all other industries, the percentage is below this range. Therefore, even if LQG costs are used in place of 

Deleted: $225

Deleted: $3,343

Deleted: $255

Deleted: $3,343

Deleted: 0.17

Deleted: 2.59

Deleted: 0.17

Deleted: 0.19

Deleted: $225

Deleted: $247

Deleted: $902

Deleted: $4,132

Deleted: 0.70

Deleted: 0.80

Deleted: $902

Deleted: $1,036
6-11

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; 

January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employment impacts of 

regulatory policy. Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, “Our regulatory system 

must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting 

economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” Consistent with the 

requirements of the Executive Order, this Assessment considers the employment impacts 

of the proposed rule. Ideally, this Assessment would include a quantitative assessment of 

these impacts, but insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment 

associated with the rule. This Assessment therefore presents a qualitative assessment of 

the rule’s potential employment impacts.

In general, an environmental regulation can be understood as an increase in demand for a 

particular output: environmental quality. Meeting this new demand can result in 

increased demand for the various factors of production (including labor) available to the 

economy. However, the regulated sector generally relies on revenues generated by their 

other market outputs to cover the costs of supplying increased environmental quality. 

This can lead to reduced demand for labor and other factors of production used to 

produce the market output. Thus, as described in Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), 

the net effect of an environmental regulation on employment in regulated sectors and the 

overall economy is indeterminate.140 The costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may 

raise production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time 

environmental regulation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as 

the environmental protection sector. Because the costs of this rule are relatively low, both 

in aggregate and on a per-facility basis, EPA believes it is unlikely that it would result in 

significant employment impacts.

UNFUNDED MANDATES ANALYSIS

Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by 

law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments 

and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in

“any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 

one year.”

Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that propose rules that are likely to 

exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a “Written Statement” containing the 

 

costs for SQGs and CESQGs, these data suggest that the rule would not result in a significant impact for a substantial 

number of small entities.

140 Source: Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environment: An IndustryLevel Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412-436.
6-12

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the 

Federal Register:

1. Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;

2. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of 

the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or 

the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available 

to pay these costs;

3. Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;

4. Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic 

growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and

5. Description and summary of agency’s prior consultation with elected 

representatives of the affected state, local and tribal governments.

The total annualized cost of the proposed rule, including the voluntary provisions, is 

estimated to be $6.3 to $17.4 million (using a 7 percent discount rate), but declines to

$5.5 to $11.9 million when excluding the voluntary provisions. Determining the private 

sector and state/local/tribal government shares of these costs requires information on the 

extent to which regulated facilities are owned by these two groups. Based on EPA’s 2011 

BR database, approximately 6.7 percent of LQGs, or 961 facilities, are owned by 

state/local/tribal governments and the private sector accounts for approximately 89.0 

percent of LQGs or 12,697 facilities. Facility-level data are not widely available for 

SQGs and CESQGs. However, using limited data from the BR combined with facilitylevel data from the State of Washington (which this EA assumes to be representative of 

the U.S. as a whole),141 EPA estimates that 14.2 percent of SQGs and CESQGs are owned 

by state/local/tribal governments and 82.6 percent are privately-owned. Applying these 

percentages to the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including the voluntary provisions 

of the rule, suggests that the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between 

$0.7 and $2.0 million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $5.3 and 

$14.8 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). Excluding the voluntary provisions of the 

rule, the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between $0.6 and $1.4

million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $4.6 and $10.1 million 

(using a 7 percent discount rate). Therefore, based on the magnitude of the rule’s 

estimated cost impacts, EPA expects that the rule would not result in annual expenditures 

exceeding $100 million for the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments, 

separately or in aggregate.

FEDERALISM ANALYSIS

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by 

establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local 

 

141 Data provided by Jean Newman of the Washington Department of Ecology on November 8, 2012.

Deleted: $12.0

Deleted: $10.2
6-13

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with 

implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and 

actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the 

federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government. 

Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates 

whether the proposed rule may “impose substantial direct compliance costs” on state and 

local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 

describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have 

federalism implications with respect to “substantial direct compliance costs”:142

1. The $25 million test. Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and 

local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.

2. The 1 percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local 

governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues.

As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, the annualized cost of the proposed rule to 

state and local governments is estimated to be between $0.7 and $2.0 million, including 

the voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $0.6 and $1.4 million, excluding the 

voluntary provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate). Thus, the estimated costs incurred 

by facilities owned by state and local governments are not expected to exceed the $25 

million threshold. This suggests that the proposed rule would not result in substantial 

direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for facilities owned by state and 

local governments. 

EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would affect the relationship between the 

federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, 

however, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local 

officials.

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ANALYSIS

EO 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

“meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 

that have tribal implications.”

To assess the potential tribal implications of the rule, EPA compiled data on the number 

of tribally-owned establishments in the U.S. and estimated the costs of the rule for these 

 

142 The two methods are from “EPA’s Action Development Process -- Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism,” OPEI 

Regulatory Development Series, Nov 2008, at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/documents/federalismguide11-00-08.pdf.
6-14

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

facilities. Based on the BR data, less than 0.1 percent of LQGs, or approximately 5 

facilities, are tribally-owned. Similarly, based on the BR and Washington State data, less 

than 0.1 percent of SQGs and CESQGs, or between 77 and 120 facilities are triballyowned. To estimate the potential costs of the rule, the aggregate costs described above 

were applied to the estimated percentage of tribally-owned establishments. This suggests 

that the annualized cost to tribal entities is between $1,700 and $4,700, including the 

voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $1,500 and $3,300, excluding the voluntary 

provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate). Based on these values, the proposed rule is 

not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

ENERGY IMPACT ANALYS IS

EO 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use” (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the 

potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this executive order, agencies are 

required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have 

significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on 

price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider 

reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that 

such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.

The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In 

addition, with annualized costs of approximately $5.5 to $11.9 million for the mandatory 

provisions of the rule and $6.3 to $17.4 million when adding the voluntary provisions 

(based on a discount rate of 7 percent), this rule is not considered an economically 

significant action under EO 12866. 

Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the proposed rule are not 

expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution. The rule, however, 

may lead to a small increase in energy production. As described in Chapter 1, voluntary 

provisions of the rule would allow for intra-organization transfers of hazardous waste 

from CESQGs to LQGs under certain conditions. Under the baseline, the hazardous 

waste generated by CESQGs may be managed as municipal solid waste, as the RCRA 

regulations do not require CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted 

TSDF. In contrast, any hazardous waste sent from a CESQG to an LQG within the same 

organization must be managed at a TSDF under the provisions of the rule, consistent with 

the requirement for all waste generated by LQGs. Such TSDFs include hazardous waste 

burning cement kilns, which use the energy value of the wastes they burn as a source of 

heat for the production of cement. Thus, to the extent that the rule diverts hazardous 

waste generated by CESQGs from disposal as municipal solid waste to combustion for 

energy recovery, the rule may lead to an increase in energy production. The magnitude 

of this effect is uncertain.

Aside from the potential increase in energy production described above, the requirements 

of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not 

Deleted: $12.0
6-15

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In 

addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign 

supplies.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States. Among other actions, the 

Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and 

environmental effects in minority and low-income communities.

EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or 

adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates 

that the rule would reduce any adverse effects associated with the management of 

hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and low-income populations. For example, the 

rule would expand the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous waste containers 

used by SQGs and LQGs, reducing the likelihood that SQG and LQG staff mismanage 

the contents these containers. Improved labeling will also help emergency responders 

minimize local populations’ exposure to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of an 

accident. Similarly, the requirement that new LQGs submit an executive summary of 

their contingency plans to emergency management authorities would help these 

authorities respond more quickly should an accident occur. Low income and minority 

populations may also experience a reduction in risk associated with the intra-organization 

transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs under the rule. Because the storage, 

inspection, employee training, and other requirements for LQGs are more stringent than 

those for CESQGs, transferring hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs would reduce 

the risks associated with the management of hazardous waste generated by CESQGs.

While the voluntary provisions of the rule related to episodic generation may reduce the 

stringency of requirements for some SQGs and CESQGs, EPA does not expect that these 

changes will lead to increased risk for low-income or minority populations. This portion 

of the rule will still require that hazardous waste generated on an episodic basis is 

managed in a permitted unit on-site or at a permitted offsite TSDF, minimizing exposure 

risk for low-income and minority populations in the area. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION ANALYSIS

EO 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks” (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be 

“economically significant” as defined under EO 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the 
6-16

*E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version - Draft Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review **

Redline/strikeout reflects changes made during OMB Interagency Review

environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why 

the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the Agency. 

EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate negative 

impact on children. As described in the environmental justice discussion above, the 

proposed rule includes several provisions that would reduce risks for populations in close 

proximity to generator facilities. These reductions in risk represent a benefit for all 

segments of the population, including children.

JOINT IMPACTS OF RULE S

Some of the hazardous waste generators regulated by the provisions of the proposed rule 

are also subject to RCRA requirements for TSDFs. Combined, the proposed changes to 

the generator standards and the existing regulations for TSDFs would ensure that the 

management of waste by facilities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of 

human health and the environment.