1

Regulatory Impact Analysis

USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments

To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions

Of The RCRA Definition Of Solid Waste

Co-Authored By:

Mark Eads, Economist (703-308-8615; eads.mark@epa.gov)

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division (EMRAD)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307P

Washington DC 20460 USA

http://www.epa.gov/osw

DPRA Incorporated

Project contact: David Gustafson (651-215-4253; david.gustafson@dpra.com)

332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-1500

St. Paul, MN 55101 USA

http://www.dpra.com

25 September 2008
2

Prefatory Notes

· RIA Pedigree

This Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is a revised and updated version built upon two prior consecutive RIAs from 2003 and 

2007, in support of the USEPA Office of Solid Waste’s (OSW) development of the final rule amendments to the RCRA Definition of 

Solid Waste (DSW). The 27 June 2003 RIA (document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0002, 274 pages) is available from the 

Federal regulatory docket at http://www.regulations.gov in support of OSW’s 28 October 2003 DSW proposed rule available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf. The 22 January 2007 RIA (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0357, 284 

pages) is available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf in support of OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW 

supplemental re-proposal available at: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2007/March/Day-26/f5159.htm. Both the 2003 RIA and the 

2007 RIA were subject to public review, and this RIA includes revisions made by Mark Eads (OSW Economist) to remedy

deficiencies and address enhancements suggested by public commentors. This RIA includes updated unit cost data and impact 

spreadsheet calculations prepared by DPRA Incorporated as sub-contractor to Industrial Economics Inc. under FY2008 Work 

Assignment Number 1-21 of USEPA Contract Number EP-W-07-011. Mark Eads was the FY2008 Work Assignment Manager.

· Peer Review of this RIA

Although RIAs do not normally require peer review according to USEPA’s peer review guidance1, prior drafts of this 2008 RIA have 

been subject to four independent external reviews outside of OSW, at least one of which (i.e., Economics Subgroup item 2 below) may

be considered peer review. Peer review is conducted by qualified individuals (or organizations) independent of those who performed 

the work, and who are collectively equivalent in technical expertise (i.e., peers) to those who performed the original work. Peer 

review is an in-depth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodology, acceptance 

criteria, and conclusions pertaining to the specific major scientific and/or technical work product and of the documentation that 

supports them.

1 Concerning peer review of RIAs, USEPA’s 2006 peer review guidance states “Generally, if a RIA applies accepted, previously peer-reviewed methods in a 

straightforward manner, it would not undergo an additional peer review. RIAs prepared to support “major” or ”economically significant” regulations typically 

do not utilize innovative or untried economic methods. It is unnecessary to conduct peer reviews of straightforward applications or transfers of accepted,

previously peer-reviewed economic methods or analyses. The procedures used to transfer or adapt an economic work product are generally established by 

separate economic guidance documents which have be peer reviewed. Therefore, RIAs that are developed using these procedures do not normally undergo an 

additional peer review, even those prepared in support of “major” and “economically significant” rules.” Source: Section 2.2.6 (page 35) of USEPA Science 

Policy Council, “Peer Review Handbook”, 3rd Edition, document ID nr. EPA/100/B-06/002, May 2006, 

http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf.
3

1. Industry review: Both the prior 2003 and 2007 RIAs for the DSW rulemaking were subject to public review and comment

according to the Administrative Procedure Act Federal agency rulemaking requirements. However, USEPA’s peer review 

guidance does not classify public review as peer review.2

2. USEPA Economics Subgroup review: The 27 May 2004 USEPA memorandum from Steve Johnson (now USEPA Administrator) 

titled “Improving EPA’s Action Development Process”, established beginning in 2004 a new “Economics Subgroup” process for 

each USEPA economically significant rule (http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/108_2003_2004/2004_1117_slj.pdf). 

Mark Eads, OSW Economist, convened on 17 March 2005 an internal USEPA “Economics Subgroup” to oversee and review the 

design and execution of the 2007 RIA and this RIA. The Subgroup consisted of nine USEPA employees from OSW, OPEI

(http://www.epa.gov/opei), and ORD (http://www.epa.gov/ord), four of whom are Economists. Special thanks to Robin Jenkins 

(OPEI Economist) of this Subgroup for exceptional review efforts on prior drafts of this RIA.

3. USEPA-OPEI review: In March 2008, OSW provided the draft DSW final rule package including a March 2008 draft of this RIA 

to USEPA’s Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation for review and comment prior to sending to OMB.

4. OMB review: OPEI provided the DSW final rule package including a March 2008 draft of this RIA, to OMB-OIRA for 90-day

review (April, May, and June 2008) according to Executive Order 12866 (Section 6(b)(2)(B)). OSW addressed OMB’s comments 

by making appropriate edits and revisions as reflected in this finalized RIA.

· Discount Rate Applied in this RIA

The average annual economic impact estimates in this RIA are mathematically formulated in the first instance without discounted 

present value computations. Consequently, the average annual impact estimates in this RIA are not sensitive to either the 3% or 7% 

discount rate prescribed for Federal regulatory analyses in OMB’s September 2003 Circular A-4 “Regulatory Analysis” 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf). OSW’s 22 January 2007 version of this RIA (284 pages at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf) applied 7% and 15% discount rates for computing the present value and 

average annualized value of capital and O&M investment costs for onsite materials recovery/ recycling units (plant & equipment), but 

estimation of future new investment in onsite recovery/ recycling as a result of the DSW final rule, is not included in the scope of this 

RIA because industry public commentors on the 2007 RIA indicated such investment is not likely for reasons cited in this RIA.

2 Concerning public review, USEPA’s 2006 peer review guidance states “Peer review and public comment are not the same. Public comment solicited from the 

general public through the Federal Register or by other means is often required by the Administrative Procedure Act, other relevant statutes or both. Public 

comment may also be solicited for policy purposes. The Agency takes public comment on some strictly scientific products and almost all regulatory decisions. 

Public commenters usually include a broad array of people with an interest in the technical analysis or the regulatory decision; some are scientific experts (who 

may provide some peer input), some are experts in other areas, and some are interested non-experts. The critical distinction is that public comment does not 

necessarily draw the kind of independent, expert information and in-depth analyses expected from the peer review process. Public comment is open to all issues, 

whereas the peer review process is limited to consideration of specified technical issues. While it may be an important component of EPA’s decision making 

process, public comment does not substitute for peer review.” Source: ibid, section 1.2.8 (page 14).
4

Table of Contents

1. Summary & Major Findings 6

1A Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule 6

1B Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule 6

1C Summary of Expected Net Cost Savings to Industry for the DSW Final Rule 8

1D Summary of Other Findings of this RIA 9

1E Sensitivity Analysis 12

2. Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem Statement 14

2A. 1992 Task Force Recommendation to Improve RCRA Recycling Regulations 14

2B. 1987-2000 Court Decisions Direct USEPA to Restructure the RCRA DSW Regulations 15

2C. USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery 16

2D. Industry Commentors on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposals Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling 16

2E. Independent Published Studies Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling of Industrial Materials 18

3. Background & Scope to this RIA 22

3A Summary of OSW’s Prior RIAs for the DSW Rulemaking 22

3B Summary of Public Comments on the 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA 25

3C Components of the DSW Final Rule Evaluated in this RIA 29

4. Data for Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially De-Regulated by the DSW Rule 39

4A Primary Data Source for Identifying Industries, Facilities & Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected 39

4B 2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data 41

5. Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Recycling 52

5A Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline for Potential Recycling 52

5B Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently Disposed 60

5C Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that May Switchover to Recycling 66

6. Estimate of Industry Baseline Cost for Complying with 14 RCRA Regulatory Requirements 72

6A Regulatory Burden Basesline Cost Estimation Methodology 72

6B Unit Costs for Estimating the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline 75

6C Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost 79
5

Table of Contents (Continued)

7. Estimate of Potential Industry Costs to Meet 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions 80

8. Micro-Economic Breakeven Test to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling 87

8A Breakeven Test Methodology 87

8B Key Assumptions Applied to Breakeven Test 89

8C Summary of Breakeven Test Results 90

8D Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposal for Recycling Switchover 92

9. De-Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimates 95

10. Distributional Effects 104

10A Definition of Distributional Effects 104

10B Potential Distributional Effects on Industries 106

10C Potential Distributional Effects on State Governments 119

11. Countervailing Risks 120

11A Definition of Countervailing Risks 120

11B Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors 121

11C Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology 122

11D Evaluation of 12 Countervailing Risks 122

12. Sensitivity Analysis Factors 136

Appendices 154

Appendix A: Data Sources for Concentrations, Yield, & Market Values of Recoverable Commodities 155

Appendix B: Unit Costs for Estimating Affected Industry Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden (Pre-Rule) 170

Appendix C: Unit Costs for Affected Industries to Meet the 12 Conditions of DSW Exclusions (Post-Rule) 176

Appendix D: Unit Costs for Industrial Disposal & Industrial Recycling 182

Appendix E: Data for Estimating State Government Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues 199
6

Chapter 1

Summary & Major Findings

Note: The word industrial “recycling” is used in this RIA as a generalized term which is not necessarily synonymous 

to “recovery” or “reclamation”. “Recycling” typically involves a series of industrial activities, including storage 

and other handling steps that culminate in the production of a valuable end product of some kind. Thus if 

industrial secondary materials need to be reclaimed in order to produce a valuable intermediate or end product, 

the industrial reclamation activity can be thought of as one step in the overall industrial recycling process.

This RIA does not include “burning waste for energy recovery” or “blending waste for use as fuel” 

within the scope of the usage of the word recycling, because those industrial activities are not eligible for 

exclusion from RCRA regulation under the 2008 DSW amendments final rule. However, some state 

governments have classified “energy recovery” and “fuel blending” as forms of recycling. Although not 

included in the “recycling” impact estimates, this RIA does include both energy recovery and fuel blending in 

the scope of potential impacts of the DSW final rule, on baseline hazardous waste “disposal” methods.

1A. Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

The purpose of OSW’s 2008 final rule amendments to the RCRA “Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW), is to revise and clarify the 

RCRA definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2) as it pertains to certain types of hazardous secondary materials that will no longer be 

considered “solid wastes” subject to hazardous waste regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. OSW initiated this revision to the DSW for 

the reasons described in Chapter 2 “Statement of Regulatory Need” of this RIA. The DSW revisions final rule builds on:

· 2003 OSW’s 28 October 2003 proposal (Federal Register, Vol.68, No.208, pp. 61558-61599):

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf

· 2007 OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal (Federal Register, Vol.72, No. 57, pp.14172-14218):

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/fr3-26-07.pdf

1B. Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

As summarized in Exhibit 1A below, the 2008 DSW amendments final rule adds three recycling exclusions to the 16 existing DSW 

recycling exclusions at 40 CFR 261 for three categories of industrial recycling involving hazardous secondary materials (i.e., spent 

materials, listed sludges, and listed byproducts).
7

Exhibit 1A

Three Main Components of OSW’s 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule

Item Final Rule Component

Amendments to 40 CFR 260

RCRA DSW Exclusions Brief Description

1 Exclusion 1: Generator 

controlled recycling for:

1A. Land-based units*

1B. Non-land based 

units**

261.4(a)(23) land-based units 

exclusion

261.2(a)(2)(ii) non-land based units 

exclusion

260.42 Notification

260.10 Definitions

Generated and legitimately recycled within the US or its territories under the control 

of the generator:

1. Onsite in land*- or non-land** units at the generating facility, or

2. Offsite within the same company, or

3. Pursuant to a written agreement between an offsite tolling contractor and the 

generator.

2 Exclusion 2: Transferbased recycling261.4(a)(24) Exclusion

261.4(a)(25) Exports

260.42 Notification

1. Generated and subsequently transferred offsite to a different company, or

2. Exported to a foreign country for recycling.

3 Exclusion 3: Case-by-case 

variance for “non-waste 

determination”

260.30 materials eligible for 

variances

260.33 variance procedures

260.34 variance standards & criteria

1. Materials reclaimed in a continuous industrial process, or

2. Materials indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or 

intermediate,.

Explanatory Notes:

* Land-based units = landfill, surface impoundment, pile, injection well, land treatment, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, mine, cave, lagoon, pond, 

reservoir, unlined sump, pit, shaft, trench, trough, sink hole.

** Non-land based units = tank, tank system, container, containment building, industrial furnace, incinerator, boiler, kiln, oven, pad, thermal treatment device 

(e.g., sludge dryer, distillation column), sump (e.g., lined pit, lined shaft, lined reservoir, lined trough, lined trench), totally-enclosed equipment directly connected 

to an industrial production process (e.g., pipes), loading dock, vessel.
8

1C. Summary of Expected Net Cost Savings to Industry for the DSW Final Rule

Exhibit 1B below presents this RIA’s estimated average annual net cost savings to industry of the DSW final rule exclusions, taking 

into account the (a) expected future industry annual cost savings from elimination of 14 baseline RCRA regulatory burden 

requirements, plus (b) the new costs to affected industrial facilities to comply with the 12 conditions for the DSW exclusions, plus (c) 

the expected future annual net market value of commodities (e.g., metals, solvents) recovered from induced switchover of some 

baseline waste disposal to future recycling. The scope of economic impacts estimated in this RIA does not include the legitimate 

recycling factors for the two recycling exclusions and non-waste determinations for the reason explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3C) of 

this RIA.

Note: The Net Impact Estimates summarized in Exhibit 1D below do not subtract-out the estimated $0.13 million per 

year net additional cost to RCRA-authorized state government agencies to implement the requirements and 

conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions. This added annual cost to state government agencies is not 

estimated in this RIA but is estimated in OSW’s Information Collection Request (ICR) Supporting Statement 

for this final rule, which is available from the DSW rulemaking docket (ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031) at 

http://www.regulations.gov.

Exhibit 1B

Expected Annual De-Regulatory Net Cost Savings to Industry for the 2008 Final Rule DSW Exclusions

A B C D E (B+C+D)

Impact Metric

Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Transfer-Based 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance

Combined Impact

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1. Count of RCRA-regulated industries affected (2005) 70 211 Not estimated 281

2. Count of RCRA-regulated facilities affected (2005) 308 5,182 74* 5,564

3. Million tons per year of RCRA hazardous wastes affected (2005) 0.506 0.910 0.121 1.537

4. Cost savings to facilities subject to the rule:

4a. Net industry savings from de-regulating baseline recycling =

4b. Net industry savings from disposal switchover to recycling =

Subtotal direct impacts (4a+4b) =

($millions/year)

$6.8

Not estimated

$6.8 (7%)

($millions/year)

$70.6

$16.7

$87.3 (92%)

($millions/year)

$1.3

Not estimated

$1.3 (1%)

($millions/year)

$78.6 (82%)

$16.7 (18%)

$95.3 (100%)

Explanatory Notes:

· Source: The de-regulatory industry cost savings net impact estimates summarized in this Exhibit are from Chapter 9 of this RIA.

· * 74 variances correspond to the average annual number of affected facilities for an arithmetic series of 7 variances per year over a future 20-year period.
9

1D. Summary of Other Findings of this RIA

· De-Regulatory Cost Savings to Industrial Generators of Affected Secondary Materials

· 5,564 directly affected industrial facilities, which represents 31% of the 17,741 LQG+TSDF RCRA 2005 universe facilities.

· $95.3 million per year future annual net cost savings to industry:

o 82% of impact: $78.6 million/year savings from de-regulating baseline recycling

o 18% of impact: $16.7 million/year savings from expected induced switchover of baseline disposal to recycling

· Cost savings for de-regulation of 1.537 million tons per-year of hazardous secondary materials currently managed as RCRA 

hazardous wastes, which represents 3.5% of the 43.9 million tons/year 2005 RCRA hazardous waste management universe:

o 98% of impact: 1.514 million tons/year from de-regulating baseline recycling

o 2% of impact: 0.023 million tons/year from expected induced switchover of baseline disposal to recycling

· These direct impact estimates reflect the highly skewed3national distribution of hazardous waste annual tonnage; if the largest 

waste generators can take advantage of a DSW exclusion, then most of the industry cost savings will likely be realized.

· Top-5 affected economic sub-sectors (2-digit NAICS) = 86.9%:

1. 48.3% NAICS 33 manufacturing

2. 27.7% NAICS 32 manufacturing

3. 4.2% NAICS 92 public administration

4. 3.7% NAICS 61 educational services

5. 3.0% NAICS 54 professional, scientific & technical services

· Top-5 affected industry groups (4-digit NAICS) = 24.3%:

1. 7.0% NAICS 3344 semiconductor & electronics mfg

2. 5.1% NAICS 3251 basic chemical mfg

3. 4.3% NAICS 3328 coating, engraving, & heat treating mfg

4. 4.1% NAICS 3254 pharmaceutical & medicine mfg

5. 3.8% NAICS 3364 aerospace product & parts mfg

3 Skewness = Skewness is a measure of data symmetry, or more precisely, the lack of symmetry. A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it looks the same to 

the left and right of the center point of the data range. Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Section 1.3.5.11. Measures of Skewness and 

Kurtosis” in the Engineering Statistics Handbook at: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm

According to the “National Analysis” summary statistics presented in each biennial data year issue (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 

2005) of OSW’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm), the universes of RCRAregulated hazardous waste (a) generators, (b) managers, (c) shippers, and (d) receivers are skewed according to three complementary numerical indicators of 

skewness based on annual tonnage hazardous waste generated in each data year (illustrative percentages below based on 2005 data year universe of 38.347 

million tons generated by 16,191 LQG generator facilities in around 600 NAICS 4-digit generator industries in 56 US states/tribes/territories):

· Facility skewness: Top-1 facility generated 11%; top-5 facilities generated 30% .

· Industry skewness: Top-1 industry (NAICS 3251: Basic Chemical Mfg) generated 55% ; top-5 industries generated 81% .

· State location skewness: Top-1 state (TX) generated 40% ; top-5 states (TX, LA, OH, MS, IL) generated 67% .
10

· Increased Industrial Recycling

· Resource Recovery: Both of OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW proposals asserted this action will encourage resource recovery:

"This regulatory initiative is thus consistent with the Agency’s longstanding policy of 

encouraging the recovery and reuse of valuable resources as an alternative to land 

disposal.” (Source: p.61560 of 28 Oct 2003 DSW FR notice, and p.14175 of 26 March 

2007 DSW FR notice).

o $4.7 million/year market value of potentially recoverable materials (e.g., metals, solvents, other 

chemicals) contained in 2.085 million tons/year baseline disposed RCRA hazardous wastes 

evaluated in this RIA for potential switchover from disposal to future recycling.

o Induced new industrial recycling switchover from baseline disposal could involve 23,000 tons per 

year, representing:

§ 2% of the annual tonnage impact of the rule

§ 18% of the annual net cost savings to industry from the rule

§ 1.1% increase above the 2005 baseline 2.045 million tons per-year hazardous waste recycling

(i.e., 1.1% increase above the 1.420 million tons metals recovery + 0.297 million tons solvent 

recovery + 0.328 million tons other materials recovery reported in the 2005 Biennial Report)

o 2,440 industrial facilities may switchover from baseline disposal to future recycling.

· Resource Conservation: Both of OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW proposals asserted this action will encourage resource 

conservation:

“It is also consistent with one of the primary goals of the Congress in enacting the RCRA 

statute (as evidenced by its name), and with the Agency's vision of how the RCRA 

program could evolve over the longer term to promote sustainability and more efficient 

use of resources." (Source: p.61560 of 28 Oct 2003 Federal Register DSW initial 

proposal, and p.14175 of 26 March 2007 Federal Register DSW supplemental proposal).

o 902 tons per year of 14 virgin materials (i.e., 6 virgin metals, 7 virgin solvents, 1 other virgin 

material) may be conserved in the future as a result of disposal switchover to recycling under the 

DSW rule:

§ 123 tons/year metals (chromium, copper, lead, molybdenum disulfide, nickel, zinc)

§ 345 tons/year solvents (acetone, alkyl benzenes, C9-C10 alkyl benzenes, methanol, methyl 

ethyl ketone, toluene, xylene)

§ 102 tons/year other materials (carbon)

o $4.7 million/year market value of 14 virgin materials conserved (i.e., production of 14 virgin 

materials displaced by baseline disposal switchover to recycling induced by the DSW final rule).
11

· Distributional Effects

Exhibit 1C below presents potential distributional effects on 23 industries, consisting of 8 industries directly affected by the rule by

being engaged in or supporting recycling and subject to the terms of the rule, and 15 industries possibly indirectly affected by the rule 

but not engaged in or supporting recycling nor subject to the terms and conditions of the final rule exclusions.

Exhibit 1C

Potential Direct & Indirect Distributional Effects on 23 Industries

A B C D E F

Item

NAICS

industry

code Industry Identity

Count of 

facilities

affected

Average annual 

distributional effect on 

industry sales revenues 

Distributional effect 

as % average annual 

facility revenues

A. Direct Distributional Effects on Industrial Facilities Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Terms of the Rule

1

2

3

331492

562211

562211

A. Hazardous waste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals)

H020 solvent recovery

H039 other materials recovery (carbon in this RIA)

96

57

36

-$21,892,500

-$2,353,300

-$6,508,400

-1.995%

-0.422%

-1.845%

4

5

6

7

562998

562998

562998

42393

B. Intermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution

Waste & recycling brokerage facilities

Waste & materials transfer facilities (storage & consolidation)

Waste & materials sorting facilities

Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution facilities

Up to 164

Up to 1,473

Up to 1,233

Up to 16

$0*

$0*

$0*

$0*

0%*

0%*

0%*

0%(

8 562112 C. Hazardous waste transportation services (trucking) Up to 358 -$46,511,300 -2.192%

B. Indirect Distributional Effects on Industrial Facilities Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Terms of the Rule

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

21223

3241

325

327

493

561

562

D1. Hazardous waste beneficial disposal (H050 & H061 energy recovery):

Copper, lead, nickel & zinc mining

Petroleum & coal products mfg

Chemical mfg

Nonmetallic mineral product mfg (i.e., cement mfg)

Warehousing & storage

Administrative support services

Waste management & remediation

1

2

3

20

1

1

15

-$27,400

-$31,900

-$47,900

-$355,900

-$12,200

-$9,100

-$273,700

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%

16

17

18

562211

562211

562211

D2. Hazardous waste non-beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal

H134 deepwell injection disposal

H040, H071 to H131, H135 other non-beneficial disposal methods

44

0

88

-$8,460,200

$0

-$648,700

-3.324%

0%

-0.096%

19 562212 E. Non-hazardous waste disposal (recycling residuals which become non-haz) Up to 2,012 +$943,500 +0.014%

20

21

331492

325199

F. Virgin materials production (displaced by disposal switchover to recycling):

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals)

Virgin solvent production (all other basic organic chemical mfg)

Up to 172

Up to 685

-$3,680,400

-$578,900

-0.156%

-0.001%
12

22 325188 Virgin other materials production (carbon black mfg) Up to 25 -$438,500 -0.0004%

23 2121 G. Coal mining (to replace lost H050 & H061 energy recovery rows 4 to 10); 

Note: other substitute fuels could also be available rather than coal (e.g., other 

types of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes with Btu value)

Up to 1,190 +$191,800 +0.0012%

Explanatory Notes:

· Source: This exhibit summarizes the distributional effect estimates presented in Chapter 10 (Exhibits 10B & 10C) of this RIA.

· * This RIA assumes no net inter-industry distributional effects on intermediate middlemen because they handle both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes/materials.

· Small Business Impacts (1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act4)

· Because the DSW final rule exclusions are voluntary, as well as deregulatory, there is no expected direct adverse impact to 

small entities subject to the DSW rule (industrial waste generators and TSDFs are subject to the rule’s requirements).

· Compared to LQGs, SQGs most likely have a smaller number of hazardous constituents in their waste and thus may have a 

technical advantage for their hazardous wastes to be recycled:

o 90% of facilities in a 1996 OSW national survey of TSDFs reported that between 10 and 60 hazardous chemical 

constituents are present in RCRA hazardous wastes they manage (i.e., in hazardous wastes TSDFs receive from 

LQGs and SQGs or generate themselves).

o Over one-third of all TSDFs surveyed reported between 10 and 20 hazardous chemical constituents (the highest 

number of constituents reported for a single waste stream was 287).

o Each of the 15 most prevalent constituents occurred in 20% of large waste streams: five heavy metals (lead, 

chromium, cadmium, barium, arsenic) and 10 organic chemicals (toluene, xylenes, benzene, acetone, methyl ethyl 

ketone, methylene chloride, ethyl benzene, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl acetate). Waste streams 

reported in the survey carry a total of 724 different chemical constituents.

This survey suggests that most LQGs must address a relatively higher number of hazardous constituents in developing their 

waste management approaches such as recycling, compared to SQGs (source: Chapter 3 of “National Hazardous Waste 

Constituent Survey Summary Report”, Oct 1998: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/summary.pdf;

complete survey data are available as item (4) at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm.).

4 Since its enactment in 1980, the RFA has required every Federal agency to prepare “regulatory flexibility analyses” for any public notice-and-comment 

regulation (i.e., proposed rule) it issues, unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule “will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities” (i.e., SISNOSE) subject to the terms and conditions of the rule. The 1996 SBREFA amendment to the RFA strengthened the 

RFA’s analytical and procedural requirements. For additional information about RFA/SBREFA see: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa
13

1E. Sensitivity Analysis

Not revealed in the impact estimates of this RIA are uncertainties in numerical values for computation factors. These uncertainties are 

not transparent because this RIA assigns single point values to numerical factors applied in the impact computations, rather than 

numerical uncertainty ranges (e.g., lower-bound, most-likely, and upper-bound). As defined and derived in Chapter 12 of this RIA, 

there are 11 impact estimation uncertainty factors which deserve highlighting how they may influence the magnitude of future annual 

impacts of the DSW final rule. Exhibit 1D below presents how each of the uncertainty factors could affect the actual economic 

impacts of the DSW final rule in any given future year. These 11 factors are not necessarily additive (i.e., compounding) in any given 

year, and some factors are over-lapping (e.g., factors #3, #4, and #6 are sub-components in part or in whole of factor #2).

Exhibit 1D

Sensitivity of Annual Impact Estimate to 11 Uncertainty Factors

A B C D E

Item Type of Impact Uncertainty Factor

Numerical Uncertainty 

Range in Factor*

Impact Estimate Range**

($millions/year)

0 RIA annual impact estimate for Exclusions 1 + 2 + 3 (w/out uncertainty applied) = $95.3

Uncertainty ranges = Low-end High-end Low-end High-end

1 State government adoption uncertainty -23% 0% $73.6 $95.3

2 Future fluctuation in annual tonnage of affected materials (3 major components): -57% +45% $41 $138

3 a. Within-year tonnage discrepancy between generation & management of affected materials -34% +39% $63 $132

4 b. Future annual economic growth of US industrial output 0% +5.6% $95.3 $100.6

5 c. Data quality assurance (already de-regulated wastes may be in Biennial Report database) -0.7% 0% $94.6 $95.3

6 Indirect inclusion of SQGs in baseline data on hazardous wastes (rather than direct inclusion) +31% +89% $125 $180

7 Physical/chemical quality of secondary materials for viable recovery/recycling -21% 0% $75.3 $95.3

8 Expected accuracy of impact estimates -20% +30% $76 $124

9 Change in future market price of commodities recovered from DSW-excluded materials -50% +50% $94.2 $98.1

If include in the scope of the disposal switchover to recycling test of this RIA, rather than omit: -- -- -- --

10 a. Possibility of same-company facilities sharing offsite captive recycling facility under Exclusion 1 +10% +249% $105 $333

11 b. Possibility of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycling under Exclusion 1 +32% +47% $126 $140

Summary:***

Non-additive overall minimum and maximum range indicated across all uncertainty factors = -57% +249% $41 $333

Additive overall minimum and maximum range if add factor #1 to overall range= -80% +249% $19 $333

Explanatory Notes:

· * Definitions and calculations for each sensitivity factor provided in Chapter 12 of this RIA.

· ** Columns D & E::

o Factors 1 to 8, 10, 11: Low and high impact ranges calculated by multiplying the annual impact estimate (row 0), by the percentages in columns B & C.

o Ractor 9: Low- and high-end impact ranges calculated by changing the prices applied within the impact estimation spreadsheets for this RIA.

· *** All impact factors are not necessarily additive in any year because some may be mutually exclusive (e.g., increase in factor 10 tonnage may lead to decrease in factor 11 tonnage 

and vice versa), and some factors may cancel-out others via positive correlation (e.g., decrease in factor 2 tonnage may lead to decrease in factor 10 & 11 tonnages and vice versa). 

However, state government adoption uncertainty is additive to other factors in any given future year.
14

Chapter 2

Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem Statement

This chapter traces the historical origin of the need for this regulatory form, in the form of a 1992 task force and a series of 1987-2000 

court decisions on the subject, followed by more recent environmental policy, industrial comments, and independent studies which 

also established the need and provided both a theoretical and empirical context for the final rule amendment to the RCRA Definition 

of Solid Waste.

2A. 1992 Task Force Recommendation to Improve RCRA Recycling Regulations

OSW’s ambition to re-examine the 40 CFR 261 RCRA “Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW) dates back to October 1992 when it 

formed the “Definition of Solid Waste Task Force”, which published recommendations for developing new DSW regulations in 

November 1994. The DSW Task Force was formed in response to a recommendation in the July 1992 update to the RCRA 

Implementation Study (RIS)5, which concluded that:

RCRA Subtitle C regulations are difficult to understand and apply, and that the rules do not regulate 

[industrial hazardous waste] recycling consistently.

The RIS update recommended developing policy options that would improve how RCRA recycling regulations address environmental 

risks while reducing barriers to industrial recycling. The 2008 DSW final rule reduces barriers to recycling by adding three new 

regulatory exclusions for industrial recycling to the 16 existing DSW industrial recycling exclusions listed in Exhibit 2A below.

5 RIS = EPA Publication Number: 530-R-92-021. This document is not currently available in electronic format. RCRA Online Number: 50309. Title: “RCRA 

Implementation Study Update: The Definition of Solid Waste”, 15 July 1992; Description: Reexamines the EPA definition of solid waste in an attempt to clarify 

EPA's RCRA mandate. Explores resource recovery, recycling regulations, and implementation issues, and presents a plan for change. Summarizes meetings held 

to solicit industry, interest group, and other government branch input on the definition of solid waste and hazardous waste recycling regulations (source: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/ea6e50dc6214725285256bf00063269d/1ab72d5921fa644c85256a7e00762b62!OpenDocument).
15

Exhibit 2A

16 Current Industrial Recycling Exclusions from the 40 CFR 261 RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (as of 2007)

Item Year 40 CFR Abbreviated Description of Exclusion (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr for complete descriptions & conditions)

1 1985 261.2(e)(i) Materials used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product without being reclaimed

2 1985 261.2(e)(ii) Materials used or reused as effective substitutes for commercial products

3 1985 261.2(e)(iii) Materials returned as a feedstock to the industrial process from which generated without being reclaimed or land disposed

4 1985 261.4(a)(6) Pulping liquors that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the pulping process

5 1985 261.4(a)(7) Spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid

6 1986 261.4(a)(8) Materials reclaimed and returned to the original process(es) in which generated for reuse in production if entire process is 

closed by tanks, pipes or other enclosed conveyance, if reclamation doesn’t involve combustion.

7 1990 261.4(a)(9) Spent wood preserving solutions that have been reclaimed and reused for their original intended purpose

8 1991 261.4(a)(10) K060, K087, K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148 wastes recycled to coke ovens or tar recovery

9 1991 261.4(a)(11) Recovered non-wastewater splash condenser dross residue of K061 treatment in metals recovery units

10 1994 261.4(a)(12) Petroleum refinery oil-bearing sludges, byproducts or spent materials inserted into the refining process

11 1997 261.4(a)(13) Scrap metal being recycled

12 1997 261.4(a)(14) Circuit boards being recycled if stored prior to recovery and free of mercury, nickel-cadmium & lithium

13 1998 261.4(a)(17) Spent materials generated by the primary mineral processing industry for recovery of minerals, acids, etc.

14 1998 261.4(a)(18) Petrochemical oil recovered from organic chemical manufacturing if oil is inserted into petro-refining process

15 1998 261.4(a)(19) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining used as feedstock to produce cresylic or naphthenic acid

16 2002 261.4(a)(20) Hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers

2B. 1987-2000 Court Decisions Direct USEPA to Restructure the RCRA DSW Regulations

In addition to the purpose of removing regulatory barriers to industrial recycling, OSW also initiated this final rule partially in response 

to a 1987 to 2000 series of seven decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit6, which, taken together, have provided 

OSW with additional direction regarding RCRA regulatory exclusion of industrial recycling. This final rule represents an important 

addition to and restructuring of the 40 CFR 261 RCRA DSW regulations that:

6 Pages 61562 to 61563 of the Federal Register announcement for OSW’s 28 Oct 2003 proposed revisions to the RCRA “Definition of Solid Waste” provide a 

synopsis of the following seven 1987-2000 series of DC Circuit Court decisions: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf

· 1987: American Mining Congress v. USEPA (“AMC I”)

· 1990: American Petroleum Institute v. USEPA (“API I”)

· 1990: American Mining Congress v. USEPA (“AMC II”)

· 1993: US v. ILCO

· 1994: Owen Electric Steel Co. v. USEPA

· 2000: American Petroleum Institute v. USEPA (“API II”)

· 2000: Association of Battery Recyclers v. USEPA (“ABR”)
16

· Distinguish “wastes” from non-waste (i.e., not “discarded”) materials for RCRA regulatory purposes when legitimately

reclaimed, and

· Ensure environmental protections over industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling practices, 

The DSW final rule is de-regulatory in nature because it excludes certain recyclable materials that have heretofore been subject to 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations, from Subtitle C regulation as hazardous waste. The factors for defining “legitimate” recycling in

40 CFR 260.43 for the two recycling exclusions and non-waste determinations are substantively the same as the current legitimacy

policy. The DSW final rule is not intended to bring new wastes into the RCRA regulatory system.

2C. USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery

By removing hazardous waste regulatory controls over certain industrial recycling practices, USEPA expects that this final rule will 

encourage the safe, beneficial recycling of additional hazardous secondary materials. This regulatory initiative is thus consistent with 

the USEPA-OSWER’s longstanding policy of encouraging the recovery, recycling, and reuse of valuable resources as an alternative to 

discard and disposal as waste, while at the same time maintaining protection of human health and the environment. It also is 

consistent with the primary “resource conservation” goal of the Congress in enacting the RCRA statute (as evidenced by the RCRA 

statute’s name: Resource Conservation & Recovery Act), and with OSW’s vision of how the RCRA program could evolve over the 

long-term to promote economic sustainability and more efficient use of resources.7

2D. Industry Commentors on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposals Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling

OSW received in public comments on the October 2003 and March 2007 DSW proposals, corroborating evidence that the DSW final 

rule may stimulate additional industrial recycling. Following are para-phrased excerpts explaining how recycling of five specific types 

of industrial secondary materials might be stimulated as identified by public commenters. (Source: para-phrased from comments by

IPC Association of Connecting Electronics Industries, Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0458 and Chevron Corp, Commentor ID nr. 

2002-0031-0464, available at http://www.regulations.gov). Summarization of these public comments in this RIA does not constitute 

OSW endorsement of their content, authors, or sponsoring organizations.

1. Solder: Solder dross, a byproduct of the soldering process, is sent back to the solder manufacturers and returned to 

electronics facilities and other solder users. Due to designation as a hazardous waste by many states, solder is 

7 OSW’s long-term “vision” of the future of the RCRA waste management program is discussed in the document “Beyond RCRA: Prospects for Waste and 

Materials Management in the Year 2020,” which is available on USEPA’s website at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm
17

infrequently recycled or reclaimed from used electronic components and sweatables (wipers, lead-bearing Qtips, solder tips, rollers, and personal protective equipment contaminated with solder). Reclamation by the 

solder manufacturer would occur more frequently if the regulatory barriers were reduced or removed. Sludge 

from the stencil wash evaporator process can also be sent to the solder manufacturer for reclamation and 

would be done more frequently under less burdensome regulatory schemes.

2. Copper: Copper containing drill dust (approximately 10% copper) and edger dust (20-25%copper) generated during the 

manufacture of PCBs is generally not recycled because of the high cost of shipment as compared to landfill 

disposal. Under the DSW rule this secondary material could be easily combined with copper containing sludge 

for more efficient shipment and recycling.

3. Vanadium: The primary manufacturing process for vanadium production in the US is to adsorb raw vanadium from oil, 

extract the vanadium from the adsorbent, and produce vanadium products. This sequence of processes occurs 

at multiple industry sites as do many manufacturing chains today. However, since the adsorbent was also 

considered to be "spent" in its function as a petroleum catalyst, it was listed as a hazardous waste whether or 

not it was disposed or processed in the vanadium manufacturing chain. The result of the listing has been that 

the manufacturing chain became uneconomical for many vanadium sources and the adsorbent containing raw 

vanadium has been increasingly disposed of as hazardous spent catalyst (K172). The DSW rule may reverse 

the negative consequences of the listing with its proposal to clarify when a material is not a waste. Over time 

we anticipate more material containing vanadium will leave the disposal stream and enter the manufacturing 

chain. We believe this is but one example demonstrating the value of this proposal.

4. WW sludge: Hydroxide metal sludge, created through the treatment of printed circuit board [PCB] electroplating 

wastewater [WW], is one of the many secondary materials that would be affected by the DSW proposal. Under 

RCRA, metal precipitate sludge produced in this manner is a listed hazardous waste, even when it is being 

shipped off-site for metals recovery. The hazardous waste designation increases the cost of recycling, resulting 

in a large quantity of valuable metal bearing sludge being disposed of in hazardous waste landfills rather that 

being recycled. The 1998 Metal Finishing Common Sense Initiative F006 Benchmarking Study found that 

landfilling was the dominant choice for final disposal of electroplating sludge.

5. Plating sludge:In addition to metal smelters, etchant suppliers are potentially interested in recycling electroplating sludge 

from printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturers. However the need to become a RCRA-permitted TSDF in 

order to perform recycling under EPA's RCRA hazardous waste regulations has deterred these facilities from 

pursuing this type of copper recycling. When electroplating sludge is mixed into spent etchant, the residual 

acid or alkaline content in spent etchant dissolves the electroplating sludge to produce the same dissolved 

copper compounds as the spent etch contains. Under current RCRA regulations, etchant suppliers have not 
18

been interested in receiving this mixture, as it would require them to become a permitted TSDF. Under the 

DSW proposal, this combined mixture could be shipped to the etchant supplier for recycling, allowing the PCB 

manufacturer to eliminate separate shipments of electroplating sludge and etchant. However, because 

landfilling is generally less expensive than metals recovery under current regulatory restrictions, much metalsrich sludge is land filled, wasting valuable resources.

The prospect for the DSW final rule to reduce existing regulatory barriers to encourage new future recycling was not shared by all 

industry commentors on the 2003 or 2007 DSW proposals. The Environmental Technology Council (ETC; commentor ID nr. 2002-

0031-0119) in its comments on the 2003 DSW proposal stated:

“It is very likely that a proper engineering and scientific approach would have shown that there are few barriers to recycling, 

and that nearly all wastes that are truly amenable to solvent recovery, metals recovery or other recovery are being recycled 

today. Indeed the only barrier might be permitting costs, but EPA’s proposed rule on Standardized Permits will significantly 

reduce this barrier and cost when finalized. Then the only costs will be minor administrative and recordkeeping costs, which 

are a small percentage of the savings and other benefits realized from recycling. Likewise, EPA’s Uniform and Electronic 

Manifesting Rule-Making initiatives will reduce these costs further. Throwing out RCRA control for a small increase in 

recycling ignores the consequences including public health impacts, increased environmental releases and contaminated sites 

resulting from poor unregulated storage and processing practices.”

2E. Independent Published Studies Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling of Industrial Materials

Not represented in the above descriptions of regulatory need and problem statements, are independent published studies on the subject 

of RCRA regulatory barriers to industrial recycling. In addition to the four sources of regulatory need summarized above, five studies 

published 1989 to 2001 by independent organizations listed below, also identified the need for reforming the RCRA DSW and 

identified RCRA regulatory barriers to industrial materials recovery/recycling. These studies do not represent an exhaustive literature 

search on the subject, but are studies which OSW easily found via an internet search using the key phrase <RCRA regulatory industry

recycling barriers>. Summarization of these studies in this RIA does not constitute OSW endorsement of their content, authors or 

sponsoring organizations.

1. 2001 Rand Corporation: “The second kind of regulatory barrier derives from the regulation of treatment and recycling 

activities on site. The RCRA and many state agencies maintain close controls over these activities, often with the result 

that a firm pursues a treatment or recycling option in the hope of escaping some regulatory burden only to discover that 

it has traded one regulatory regime for another. Some firms fear that the regulators use control over on-site activities 

precisely to avoid being displaced by pollution-prevention and other innovative environmental policies.” (Source: Rand 

Corporation, Chapter 3 “Chapter Three “Approaches to Environmental Management in Proactive Commercial Firms” by
19

Frank Camm in “Environmental Management in Proactive Commercial Firms: Lessons for Central Logistics Activites in 

the Department of Defense”, 2001, p.39: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1308.pdf).

2. 2000: Progressive Policy Institute: “Problem: A major pollution problem of the iron and steel industry is the discharge of 

spent sulfuric, hydrochloric, or mixed acids used to form finished steel. Each year approximately 1.4 billion gallons of 

spent hydrochloric and sulphuric acids are discharged, primarily to receiving waters, landfills, or injected 

underground. EPA estimates that only 2 percent are reclaimed and recycled. Barriers: The most immediate barrier to 

lowering discharges of acids used in the production process is the definition of solid waste in EPA's RCRA regulations, 

in which used acids must be treated as a RCRA waste if they are to be reclaimed. This requires a firm to apply for a 

RCRA storage permit, which is difficult and costly to obtain, and adds significant paperwork if the firm wishes to reuse 

the material in the production process. These requirements escalate the difficulty and cost of recycling so much that it is 

more economic for most firms to dispose of the acids instead... Bottom Line: EPA should amend the definition of waste 

to allow reclamation activities to proceed without having the material become a RCRA waste.” (Source: PPI Policy

Report 01 Aug 2000, “How Environmental Laws Can Discourage Pollution Prevention: Case Studies of Barriers to 

Innovation”, Byron Swift: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=150&contentID=1159).

3. 1999: Energy & Environmental Research Center “Regulatory barriers result from the EPA RCRA designation of [coal 

combustion byproducts] as solid wastes even when they are utilized rather than disposed of. In the absence of special 

state exemptions from solid waste regulations for beneficial use, the “waste” designation can trigger case-by-case

approval and permitting procedures that discourage the use of CCBs because of cost and the time required to complete 

adjudicatory processes. The ineffectiveness of federal agencies to promulgate regulations and guidelines to overcome 

this barrier continues to hinder use of byproducts.” (Source: EERC, “Barriers to The Increased Utilization of Coal 

Combustion/ Desulfurization By-Products by Government And Commercial Sectors – Update 1998”, EERC Topical 

Report, July 1999; p.xix, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/777109-WOStla/webviewable/777109.PDF).

4. 1998: Resources for the Future: “Used fixer, even if part of a recycling-based system, is given a "spent material" RCRA 

classification. An unfortunate consequence of this rule is that, simply by using the product, DuCare customers become 

hazardous waste generators. According to several people interviewed for the case, regulatory burdens associated with 

this rule create a powerful motivation to simply discharge used fixer to the drain and POTW [publicly-owned treatment 

works]. The RCRA classification issue is the largest source of DuCare customer complaints. Its costs are difficult to 

quantify but are related to several factors. From a customer's standpoint, the spent fixer distribution system requires 

them to administer special handling and storage, labeling, training, and reporting procedures. Many small printers 

have never had experience with this sort of regulatory program... The classification also increases the costs of 

providing the recycling system. As noted earlier, the "reverse distribution" system that sends the fixer back for 

recycling is a major cost component. The hazardous classification means that the developer and fixer must be shipped

separately. The inability to consolidate shipments increases costs, since there are scale economies associated with the 
20

transport of loads to the central processing facilities. The licensed transport required for the fixer is approximately 

twice as expensive as the transport used for the spent developer (spent developer has a less onerous "corrosive" 

Department of Transportation classification).” (Source: RFF,“Searching for the Profit in Pollution Prevention: Case 

Studies in the Corporate Evaluation of Environmental Opportunities”, Discussion Paper 98-30, May 1998, pp.32-33: 

http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-98-30.pdf).

5. 1995: The Reason Foundation: “So whatever “recycling” is, RCRA applies to it and doesn't apply to “virgin” materials used 

as commercial products— even though recycling operations are already subject to the same environmental regulations 

as comparable activities using virgin materials, like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act, Superfund, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Toxic Substances 

Control Act. Many perfectly acceptable and reusable (and regulated) raw materials—salts of heavy metals, acids, toxic 

solvents, water-reactive materials, and so on—become RCRA hazardous wastes the moment they are “discarded,” 

whatever that means, which virtually guarantees that few people will recycle them. The market advantage this grants 

virgin materials should be clear enough ... It is also a hassle for companies that want to send their wastes to be 

recycled, but are afraid that the recycling facility may eventually be declared a hazardous waste site (and that they may 

be subject to Superfund liability) because of a process determination, not based on whether or not the product is 

hazardous. The EPA's distinctions are important because they affect all recycling operations—and sometimes they 

destroy the incentive to recycle instead of throw away. The laws applying to recycling are difficult to understand and 

implement, and the consequences of recycling are uncertain. For many, this becomes an unacceptable risk, and this 

risk often leads to avoidance. Even the EPA concedes that the current regulations are difficult to implement and 

discourage safe recycling of hazardous waste.” (Source: The Reason Foundation, “Recycling Hazardous Waste: How 

RCRA Has Recyclers Running Around in CERCLAS”, by Alexander Volokh, Policy Study nr. 197, October 1995 at: 

http://www.reason.org/ps197.pdf).

6. 1989:The Northwest Policy Center: “[T]he decision to recycle hazardous wastes on-site becomes less obvious for companies 

whose alternative costs of disposal are lower, or for whom process changes are more difficult or expensive. For some of 

these companies there is a delicate balance between on-site recycling and immediate transport, land disposal, or 

incineration of all wastes generated. This balance can be tipped by the regulatory environment toward the latter, even if 

the wastes include valuable metals or if re-use of hazardous wastes could decrease the costs for new raw materials... 

For companies operating batch processes, it may take longer than this 90-day period to accumulate a sufficient quantity 

of a particular waste to justify recycling. From the first day that even small quantities of these wastes are stored, some 

companies must also meet EPA and local fire marshal standards, including the ability of the storage area to hold and 

withstand a continuous stream of water if a fire occurs. Meeting these standards at several locations at a specific 

facility can create expenses than are far greater than the immediate benefits of recovery. There are extensive 

requirements for labeling and handling of materials once they are classified as a hazardous waste, which present 
21

significant obstacles to recycling these wastes.” (Source: TNPC “Hazardous Waste Source Reduction: Industry

Perception Of Regulatory And Other Impediments”, June 1989, pp.7, 8: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/23/22470.pdf).

However, not all independent studies on the topic of RCRA regulatory barriers to industrial secondary materials recovery/recycling 

agree with the above studies. For example, a 2003 Boston College study concluded:

2003: Boston College: “One possible solution that bodes well for pollution reduction, or even prevention, has been the 

concept of eco-industrial development (EID). EID describes a closed-loop industrial cycle where generated materials 

or by-products are returned to the manufacturing process, either used by another facility, or as feedstock for the 

production of other products. It has been argued, usually by the regulated community, that environmental regulations 

create unnecessary impediments to creative solutions like EID. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

regulations are often cited as the most obstructing... To categorically state that RCRA is a barrier to eco-industrial 

development, or that such projects are doomed to fail in the U.S. without regulatory restructuring of RCRA, is simply 

unfounded. First, for RCRA to even apply, the recycled secondary material must be a solid waste, must be hazardous, 

and must involve one of the regulated secondary materials and recycling methods. Considering the exclusions and 

exemptions, there appear to be many unregulated recycling possibilities. Second, RCRA’s recycling-as-solid-waste 

definitions are designed to restrict unsafe methods of recycling, not legitimate recycling.” (Source: Jo Jeanne Lown, 

Managing Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol.30, Part 2, 2003, pp.275-314).
22

Chapter 3

Background & Scope of this RIA

3A. Summary of OSW’s Prior RIAs for the DSW Rulemaking

· Recap of OSW’s 1995 DSW RIA Methodology Study

· In support of the work done by OSW’s 1992-1994 DSW Task Force, ICF Inc. prepared two RIA documents: (a) 1994 document 

entitled “Methodology for a Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Definition of Solid Waste”, which explored conceptually the 

approaches that OSW could use to complete an RIA for proposed changes to the DSW; and (b) 30 Sept 1995 “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Methodology for the Redefinition of Solid Waste” which proposed impact estimation methodologies and data sources for 

two separate sets of DSW revision options:

o Options set #1: RCRA jurisdiction:

1. In-commerce/minimum conditions

2. Transfer-based approach (3 sub-options: 1. onsite, 2. intra-industry, 3. inter-industry)

o Options set #2: Regulated recycling:

1. Tracking system

2. Management standards

3. Approval system

4. Legitimate recycling

· Disposal switchover to recycling: The 1995 methodology (pages 105-106) also included a proposal to estimate potential 

switchover from baseline hazardous waste disposal, to new recycling, in addition to estimating the potential de-regulatory cost 

savings associated with baseline hazardous waste recycling. The Sept 1995 DSW re-definition RIA methodology conceptual study

completed by ICF Inc for OSW, outlined a 2-stage impact estimation process involving four parts

o Part 1: Identify recycling methods for which baseline costs are expected to be reduced at least 10% by the rule, and the types of 

wastes being recycled by those methods. For those same waste types identify any tonnages which are subject to baseline 

disposal rather than recycling.

o Part 2: Conduct focused evaluation to determine if disposed wastes identified in Part 1 are technically amenable to recycling, 

for example, by anticipating that shift-over from disposal to recycling is most likely to occur from:

o Incineration disposal and energy recovery disposal, to solvent recovery; and

o Stabilization followed by landfill disposal, to metals recovery.

o Part 3: Estimate the annualized cost for the hypothetical new recycling, and compare it to the estimated cost for the baseline 

disposal, to determine if the former is lower than the later to signify potential switchover to recycling.
23

o Part 4: As a supplement to Part 3, search technical literature on recycling to determine the best economic scale of recycling 

operations (i.e., the minimum tons-per-year of waste feedstock needed for breakeven operation), and compare to the baseline 

disposal annual tons.

· Recap of OSW’s 2003 RIA for the 2003 DSW Proposed Rule

· In June 2003, OSW completed an initial RIA

8

for OSW’s 28 October 2003 DSW proposed rule9to exclude certain types of 

industrial recycling --- in addition to the current 40 CFR 261.2 industrial recycling exclusions --- from RCRA solid waste 

regulation.10

· The 2003 RIA estimated impacts (i.e., $178 million/year regulatory cost savings) only for the proposed rule’s main “4-digit NAICS 

intra-industry” recycling exclusion option; the 2003 RIA did not estimate impacts for four other industrial recycling exclusion 

options described in the proposed rule (i.e., “onsite” option, “broad” option w/few conditions, “broad” option w/more conditions, 

and a “case-by-case” option).

· OSW received review comments on the 2003 RIA from the Environmental Technology Council (ETC) representing the US 

commercial hazardous waste management industry (see pages 43 to 58 at: http://www.etc.org/ETC_Detailed_Comments.pdf). In

addition, eight industrial commentors identified 18 specific hazardous waste categories as potentially impacted and provided 

related technical suggestions to improve the economic impact estimates. OSW evaluated these other waste categories in the 2007 

RIA for the 26 March 2007 DSW revision re-proposal.

· Disposal switchover to recycling: also included in the 2003 RIA in addition to de-regulatory cost savings for baseline recycling.

The 2003 RIA identified the primary waste types (by SIC industry code and by physical form code) being reported recycled in the 

1999 Biennial Report (BR) database, and assumed that all of these waste types being reported as disposed in 1999 (i.e., landfilled 

or thermally destroyed by energy recovery, fuel blending, or incineration) had a higher potential for onsite recycling. This 

assumption yielded eight waste types evaluated using “breakeven” for swichover from disposal to recycling:

1. Organic liquids generated by SIC 2821, 2834, 2851, 2869 (liquid form codes = B101-B119, B201-B219)

2. Emission control dust from SIC 3312 (solid form codes B301-B319, B401-B409, sludge forms B501-B519, B601-B609)

3. Metal-containing liquids from SIC 3672 (liquid form codes)

4. Electroplating wastewater treatment sludges from SIC 3672 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

5. Spent carbon from SIC 2869, 2911 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

8 OSW’s 27 June 2003 economic analysis in support of the October 2003 DSW proposed rule is available to the public as document number EPA-HQ-RCRA2002-0031-0002 (274 pages) at http://www.regulations.gov.

9 OSW’s “Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW) October 2003 proposed rule website: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr.htm

10 For background information about USEPA’s RCRA solid and hazardous waste regulations as they pertain to industrial recycling, see: (a) USEPA Office of 

Solid Waste, “Introduction to: Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling (40 CFR §§261.2 and 261.9)”, Oct 2001, EPA530-K-02-007I, 23 

pages; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/training/defsw.pdf, and/or (b) USEPA’s webpage about RCRA hazardous waste recycling at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/hazrecyc.htm
24

6. Spent catalysts from SIC 2911 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

7. Spent aluminum potliner from SIC 3334 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

8. Spent pickle liquor from SIC 3312 (liquid form codes)

· Recap of OSW’s 2007 RIA for the 2007 DSW Supplemental Re-Proposal

· In January 2007, OSW completed an RIA for the 26 March 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal, which is available at (284 pages) 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf. The 2007 RIA evaluated eight regulatory options for DSW 

exclusions listed in Exhibit 3A below. RIA “Option 8” was the main option presented in the March 2007 DSW re-proposal, and is 

the option evaluated in this RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule. For “Option 8”, the 2007 RIA estimated a range of $93 million to 

$205 million per year (“most likely” estimate = $107 million/year) in potential net annual cost savings benefits to between 460 to 

570 industries under the main option (i.e., “Option 8”), consisting of:

o $12 million to $94 million per year in net benefits from inducing between 1,155 to 1,528 LQG and TSDF facilities to 

switchover between 0.038 million to 0.213 million tons per year of hazardous wastes from current RCRA-regulated 

disposal in landfills and incinerator, to new DSW-excluded recycling.

o $81 million to $111 million per year in RCRA de-regulatory cost savings to between 2,420 to 3,860 LQG and TSDF 

facilities associated with de-regulating between 0.291 million to 1.488 million tons per year of hazardous waste currently

recycled as RCRA-regulated wastes.

· Disposal switchover to recycling: also included in the 2007 RIA in addition to de-regulatory cost savings for baseline recycling.

The 2007 RIA built upon the eight waste types identified in the 2003 RIA, and incorporated the 18 waste types identified by public 

commentors on the 2003 RIA, resulting in a list of 12 waste types for breakeven evaluation, consisting of the same eight disposal 

waste types from the 2003 RIA, plus four other disposal waste types:

1. Lead acid batteries

2. Lead-bearing materials

3. Oil from petrochemical manufacturing plants

4. Oil refining spent acids

Exhibit 3A

List of 40 CFR 261 DSW Exclusion Options for Industrial Recycling Analyzed in OSW’s 22 January 2007 RIA

DSW Exclusion Option Brief Description of Option

1 Onsite only Relatively narrow exclusion for recycling that is done onsite (i.e., at the secondary material generator’s facility), 

originally described in the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p.61575).

2 4-digit NAICS

intra-industry transfer

Relatively narrow exclusion for recycling that is done in a “continuous process within the same industry”, originally 

described as the main option of the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p. 61563-61574).

3 Broad inter-industry offsite Broad exclusion with relatively few conditions, as originally described in the preamble of the Oct 2003 DSW proposed 
25

Exhibit 3A

List of 40 CFR 261 DSW Exclusion Options for Industrial Recycling Analyzed in OSW’s 22 January 2007 RIA

transfer w/few conditions rule (p.61588); the version of this option analyzed in this RIA includes three implementation conditions under the “mostlikely”* impact estimate: (1) no speculative accumulation, (2) generator notifies USEPA of recycling activity, and (3) 

generator re-notifies if recycling activity changes. The Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule listed possible additional 

conditions for this option (pp.61588-61589).

4 Broad inter-industry offsite 

transfer w/additional 

conditions

Same as Option 3 with more comprehensive conditions to prevent “discard”; the “most-likely”* version of this option 

analyzed includes eight implementation conditions, consisting of the three conditions (1), (2), (3) of Option 3, plus five 

additional conditions: (4) maintain onsite records of recycling activities, (5) no land placement of materials, (6) recycler 

has financial assurance, (7) generator exercises “due diligence” of recycler, and (8) export of materials for recycling 

follows notice and comment requirement.

5 Option 4 as RCRA 

“exemption” rather than DSW 

“exclusion”

Same as Option 4 with a conditional “exemption” from the RCRA definition of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3, 261.4), 

rather than “exclusion” from the definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2). Note: Although this option is embedded and 

displayed as a separate option within the analytic framework and impact tables of the 2007 RIA, because the 

implementation conditions assigned for impact estimation are identical to Option 4, the estimated impacts for this option 

in the 2007 RIA are identical to Option 4.

6 Case-by-case petition Case-by-case variance mechanism, as described in the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p.61589).

7 Generator controlled Same as Option 1 but with two additional exclusions for offsite transfers: (a) within the “same company” and (b) with 

“tolling contractors”. Note: the 2007 RIA dids not separately evaluate the “non land based units” and “land based 

units” components of this exclusion.

8 Combination of options 4, 6, 

7

Option 4 + Option 6 + Option 7. Note: this option was not included in the initial analytic framework of the 2007 RIA; 

consequently, OSW derived an impact estimate for this option by non-duplicative incremental addition of the estimated 

impacts for two of its constituent options (i.e., Option 4 + Option 6); Option 7 impact was not added because Option 7 

impact is nested within Option 4 impact and is therefore not incremental.

* Note: “most-likely” = to account for various sources of economic impact estimation uncertainty for each option, this RIA provides impact estimation ranges 

consisting of “minimum”, “medium” (i.e., most-likely), and “maximum” impact estimates.

3B. Summary of Public Comments on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

As identified in Exhibit 3B below, OSW received 25 sets of comments from 30 organizations (two comment sets were submitted 

jointly by more than one organization) on the 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs, and on related economic analysis sub-topics associated with 

OSW compliance with Executive Order 12866 procedures for completing Federal government RIAs These 25 comment sets represent 

18% of the total 136 “universe” of public comment sets on all topics of both the October 2003 DSW proposed rule and the March 

2007 supplemental re-proposal for the DSW rulemaking. OSW received 18 comment sets from 23 organizations on the 2003 RIA, 

and 10 comment sets from 14 organizations on the 2007 RIA.
26

Exhibit 3B

Identity of Public Commentors on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

Set Name of Commentor Commentor ID nr.* 2003 RIA 2007 RIA

1 American Chemistry Council (ACC) 2002-0031-0093 X

2 American Ecology Corporation 2002-0031-0193 X

3 American Iron & Steel Institute 2002-0031-0207 X

4 Anonymous 2002-0031-0479 X

5 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) 2002-0031-0172

2002-0031-0548

X X

6 Chevron Corp. 2002-0031-0464 X

7 Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. 2002-0031-0117 X

8 Congress of the United States 2002-0031-0343 X

9 Connecticut State Dept of Environmental Protection 2002-0031-0098 X

10 Earthjustice (jointly filed with Sierra Club, US Public Interest Research Group, 

National Environmental Trust, Safe Food & Fertilizer)

2002-0031-0559 X

(n=5)

11 Eastman Chemical Company 2002-0031-0102 X

12 Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0558

X X

13 International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc. 2002-0031-0178 X

14 IPC Association of Connecting Electronics Industries 2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0458

X X

15 Kentucky State Environmental & Public Protection Cabinet 2002-0031-0130 X

16 Maine State Dept of Environmental Protection 2002-0031-0095 X

17 Metals Industries Recycling Coalition 2002-0031-0529 X

18 Newmont Mining Corporation 2002-0031-0089 X

19 North Carolina State Hazardous Waste Section 2002-0031-0067 X

20 PPG Industries Inc. 2002-0031-0203 X

21 Safe Food & Fertilizer 2002-0031-0561 X

22 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc. 2002-0031-0146 X

23 Sierra Club (jointly flied with US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), 

National Environmental Trust, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Safe Food 

& Fertilizer, Northwest Environmental Defense Center)

2002-0031-0231 X

(n=6)

24 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) 2002-0031-0471.2 X

25 Tennessee State Dept of Environment & Conservation 2002-0031-0488 X

Sub-total comment sets = 18 sets

(n=23 

organizations)

10 sets

(n=14

organizations)

Total public comments on the two prior RIAs= 25 sets

(n=30 organizations)

* Commentor ID nr. as assigned by the Federal regulatory docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031.
27

Exhibit 3C below presents a summary of the most prevalent sub-topics contained in the 25 sets of comments on the two prior DSW 

RIAs. These sub-topics reflect specific excerpts from each comment set as parsed and bracketed in summer 2007 by an OSW 

contractor (ICF Inc). The parsing and bracketing yielded a total of 76 sub-topics from the 25 comment sets pertaining to the DSW 

RIAs, consisting of 53 sub-topics on the 2003 RIA and 23 sub-topics on the 2007 RIA.

Exhibit 3C

Summary of Public Comment Sub-Topics on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub-Topic* Commentor ID nr.

Non-duplicative 

Commentor Count

1 Omitted analyses of potential countervailing risks for this rule such as potential increase in future 

(a) industrial recycling damage cases and cleanup costs, (b) human exposure and safety risks, (c) 

misdirected, abandoned and lost shipments, (d) traffic accidents, (e) use of coal to offset loss of 

hazardous wastes shifting from energy recovery to recycling, (f) commercial hazardous waste 

industry bankruptcies, (g) impacts of the DSW final rule on the functioning of other environmental 

and public programs (e.g., effect on “arranger liability” under CERCLA section 107)..

2002-0031-0067

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0130

2002-0031-0146

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0343

2002-0031-0479

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***

2002-0031-0561

16 comment sets

(representing 19

organizations)

2 Over-estimated potential future annual industry cost savings and new recycling benefits 2002-0031-0093

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0203

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***

11 comment sets

(representing 14 

organizations)

3 Did not adequately account for potential impacts on state government agencies (e.g., potential 

reduction in state hazardous waste fee revenues, potential non-adoption of DSW final rule by 

states, state cleanup costs for recycling damage cases)

2002-0031-0067

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0172

2002-0031-0548

7
28

Exhibit 3C

Summary of Public Comment Sub-Topics on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub-Topic* Commentor ID nr.

Non-duplicative 

Commentor Count

2002-0031-0558

2002-0031-0561

4 Mis-specified certain unit costs (e.g., baseline RCRA regulatory paperwork burden unit costs, 

onsite recycling investment and operating unit costs, market value of recovered constituents, unit 

cost for environmental permits for new onsite recycling, recoverable constituent concentrations and 

market values in baseline disposed wastes)

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0548

5

5 Incorrectly assumed baseline disposal shift to onsite recycling scenario is not realistic because of 

the unavailability of (a) investment capital, (b) industrial facility space, (c) technical expertise, (d) 

skilled labor, and (e) unwillingness to expand beyond core business NAICS code, (f) lack of 

economies-of-scale for implementing new onsite recycling that some individual facilities cannot 

support, and (g) superior quality of materials produced by offsite reclaimers/recyclers.

2002-0031-0479

2002-0031-0093

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0203

5

6 Under-estimated potential future annual industry cost savings and new recycling benefits 2002-0031-0458

2002-0031-0471.2

2002-0031-0529

3

7 Did not adequately estimate potential beneficial or adverse impacts on small businesses 2002-0031-0146

2002-0031-0458

2002-0031-0471.2

3

8 No rationale to assume in the 2003 RIA that hazardous waste tonnage recycled in 1997 but not in 

1999 will again be recycled at some point in the future because of this rule

2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0213

2

9 Incorrect mathematical treatment of RCRA Biennial Report database hazardous waste tonnage data 

outliers

2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0231

2

10 Unsubstantiated desktop analysis assumptions used rather than basing the impact analysis on an 

industry survey to determine what recycling options are available that are not being pursued today 

for regulatory reasons and for consideration of hazardous waste characteristics.

2002-0031-0119 1

11 Under-estimated future annual tonnages which may shift from current energy recovery to future 

recycling

2002-0031-0548 1

12 Over-estimated future annual tonnages which may shift from current energy recovery to future 

recycling

2002-0031-0119 1

13 Did not include an impact analysis for codification of the “legitimate recycling” criteria 2002-0031-0089 1

14 The 2007 RIA should not have characterized as “transfer effect” the adverse consequences of 

potential shift of materials away from current energy recovery to future recycling, but should have 

included this impact as a real resource cost offsetting the de-regulatory cost savings of the rule

2002-0031-0548 1

Explanatory Notes:

* Full texts of public comments are available from the Federal regulatory docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031.

** Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0231 represents a jointly-submitted set of comments representing six entities: (1) Sierra Club, (2) US Public Interest Research 

Group, (3) National Environmental Trust, (4) Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, (5) Safe Food & Fertilizer, (6) Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

*** Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0559 represents a jointly-submitted set of comments representing five entities: (1) Earthjustice, (2) Sierra Club, (3) US Public 

Interest Research Group, (4) National Environmental Trust, (5) Safe Food & Fertilizer.
29

3C. Components of the 2008 DSW Final Rule Evaluated in this RIA

Compared to the 2007 DSW RIA, there are seven major improvements to the structure and methodology of this RIA, which OSW 

implemented in large part to address and incorporate public comments on the 2007 RIA. These changes are in addition to updating the 

hazardous waste data and unit cost data.

1. Disposal switchover to recycling: Revised the methodology for estimating potential baseline disposal switchover to future 

recycling, to correct for the under-estimation bias of the 2007 RIA methodology alleged by public commentors. This revision 

consisted of expanding the scope of impact estimation methodology by:

a. Dropping NAICS code restrictions to baseline disposal data evaluated for potential switchover; five of the 12 waste 

types evaluated in the 2007 RIA were restricted to only five NAICS codes 32411, 331111, 332813, 33412, 334412; 

(source: count based on 2007 RIA Exhibit 2E, 2nd column, page 42).

b. Increasing from a count of 56 primary screening criteria waste codes applied to baseline disposed waste data in our 

2007 RIA (source: count based on 2007 RIA Exhibit 2E, 3

rd column, page 42), to a count of 67 in this RIA (count based 

on Exhibit 5F in this RIA), the total count of RCRA Biennial Report database codes (i.e., Wxxx form codes plus Gxxx 

source codes plus Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx regulatory codes) applied for identifying baseline disposed wastes for recycling 

evaluation.

c. Including (rather than excluding as was done in the 2007 RIA) both energy recovery (H050) and fuel blending (H061) 

baseline disposal quantities in the breakeven test evaluation for recycling switchover11, and

11 The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 2002-0031-0548) commented that the 2007 DW RIA “[O]nce again simply assumes without supporting facts 

that the [DSW final rule] will not affect energy recovery from hazardous wastes in cement kilns and does not adequately analyze the degree to which the rule 

will adversely affect this desirable practice... EPA has ignored or underestimated the extent to which the proposed rule would encourage energy-bearing 

hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and towards other less-regulated forms of recycling.” However, there is not 

apparently an industry-wide consensus that the DSW final rule may be expected to have an adverse impact, as evidenced by two commentors (ETC & SOCMA) 

on our prior 2003 and 2007 RIAs who offered the following contrary statements of why it is reasonable to expect a negligible impact in relation to the 

physical/chemical characteristics of hazardous wastes managed by energy recovery:

· The Environmental Technology Council (ETC, ID nr. 2002-0021-0119) who claimed to be “speaking from direct experience in the industry in 

managing [hazardous] wastes on a daily basis for over 20 years”: “There is no reason to believe that generators will be encouraged to shift the 

management practices for [hazardous wastes managed by energy recovery]. The aqueous inorganic treatment already realizes RCRA exemptions 

associated with the wastewater treatment exemptions. In addition, wastewater streams are often dilute and do not contain significant quantities of 

recoverable constituents. It is therefore doubtful that any of this volume will go to [materials] recovery. Likewise, the volumes currently managed by 

energy recovery are being done so at a savings and also as a recycling practice. Many states and TRI view energy recovery as recycling. There will be 

little incentive for generators to switch their management practices and invest capital in alternate recovery processes for these streams. In addition,

other than the BTU value, these wastes contain few components that have [materials] recovery value, which is why they are managed by energy 

recovery or fuel blending currently, as opposed to solvent recovery. The average solids content of fuel-blended waste is about 30%, and many cement 

kilns are feeding other higher-solids content waste through pails or coal injection systems. In addition, many fuel-blended streams have substantial 

water content and other organic liquid components that form azeotropes and are not amenable to solvent recovery. At most, 50,000 tons of this 

[current energy recovery] volume might be routed to other [materials] recovery, but even this is doubtful.” 
30

d. Broadening the types of disposed wastes evaluated for breakeven switchover to recycling, according to three 

commodity groups (i.e., metals, solvents, other materials) which resulted in a count of 15 commodity material 

constituents (i.e., specific types of chemicals and materials such as carbon, chromium, copper, lead, methanol, nickel, 

zinc, etc.) evaluated in this RIA (source: count based on Appendix A of this RIA), compared to a count of 11 

commodity materials evaluated in the 2007 RIA (source: Column D of Exhibit 2B, pages 34-35 of 2007 RIA).

2. Disposed waste constituents: Integrated empirical data on hazardous waste constituent characteristics from OSW’s 1996 

“National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey” (NHWCS; see item 4 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm) into the breakeven test of this RIA, to replace prior 

“desktop judgment” applied in our 2003 and 2007 RIAs concerning the concentration of commodity-like constituents 

potentially recoverable from baseline disposed hazardous wastes evaluated for possible future switchover to recycling.

3. Distributional effects: Expanded the scope of “Potential Business Impacts” Chapter 8 of the 2007 RIA, by including additional 

industries (e.g., intermediate middlemen industries, virgin material producer industries) in Chapter 10 of this RIA.

4.Countervailing risks: Added a new chapter (Chapter 11) which provides a qualitative screening assessment of countervailing 

risks involving potential adverse environmental and other types potential effects identified by public commentors on the 2003 

and 2007 DSW RIAs. The new chapter examines 12 potential countervailing risks: 1. industrial recycling environmental 

damages, 2. materials testing, 3. community & groundwater, 4. employee safety training & traffic safety, 5. human exposure, 6. 

material shipments, 7. compliance enforcement, 8. abandoned sites, 9. site inspections, 10. coal mining, 11. bankruptcy, 12. 

other environmental programs.

5. Sensitivity analysis: Added four new sensitivity analysis factors, making a total of nine factors compared to the five factors 

from the 2007 RIA: (a) -0.7% to 0% data quality assurance factor to acknowledge that the Biennial Report may contain data on 

hazardous wastes which have already been de-regulated under prior DSW and RCRA exclusions/exemptions, (b) -21% to 0% 

physical/chemical quality factor for materials recovery/recycling suitability, (c) -20% to +30% expected impact estimation 

accuracy factor to reflect the relatively low level-of-detail impact estimation methodology applied in this RIA, and (d) -50% to 

+50% commodity price factor which applies to price inputs for the baseline disposal switchover to recycling breakeven test.

6.Lifecycle analysis: The 2007 RIA (Appendix D) contained a lifecycle analysis (LCA) which compares the relative unitized 

· The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA, ID nr. 2002-0031-0471.2) claimed that “Smaller businesses have little leverage 

with or access to the larger reclamation facilities. Frequently, smaller volume waste streams must be incinerated because commercial reclamation 

facilities prefer to handle high volumes ... Overall, the cleaner a waste solvent is the more value it has either for subsequent use and application as a 

solvent or for energy recovery. Thus, the ability of a toll contractor to use existing equipment to reclaim even smaller volumes of solvents from toll 

manufacturing operations is economically a meaningful option to pursue. Relatively cleaner [waste] solvents also typically have a higher BTU value 

and hence can have greater value for energy recovery.”
31

energy (per ton) and environmental pollution for two case studies one for reclaiming metals (zinc) from K061 dust, and the 

other for reclaiming liquid organics for solvent use. These LCA case studies revealed the lack of sufficient and comprehensive 

LCA data, LCA models, and complex assumptions needed to execute LCAs for estimating comparative material flow, energy

flow, and environmental impacts associated with the 100s of different nationwide industries consisting of 1,000s of facilities 

generating and managing the 10,000s of hazardous waste streams which may be affected by the DSW rule. For example, one 

limitation of the LCA case studies is that they did not address differences in transportation distances. Another major limitation 

is the lack of detailed data for all classes of pollutants (e.g., air pollutants) for all pathways involving all hazardous waste 

management scenarios (i.e., disposal vs recovery/recycling) and virgin raw material production counterparts. The 2007 RIA 

listed five LCA limitations on pages 237 to 238. In the interim since completing these two LCA studies for the 2007 RIA, 

OSW did not add new LCA case studies, so this RIA does not provide a LCA appendix.

7.Regulatory options: Furthermore, this RIA only addresses the three exclusions contained in the DSW final rule, not all 

previous exclusion options evaluated in the 2003 and 2007 RIAs.

· Exclusion 1: Generator Controlled Recycling Exclusion (amendments to 40 CFR 260.10, 261.2, 261.4)

Exclusion 1 is similar to “Option 7” of the 2007 RIA. Exclusion 1 pertains to de-regulating three types of baseline RCRA-regulated 

hazardous waste recycling from the 40 CFR 260 RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, according to the 7 conditions summarized in 

Exhibit 3D below:

1. Onsite recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

a. Land-based units (addition to 40 CFR 260.10 and addition of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23))

b. Non-land based units (addition of 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2(ii))

2. Offsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of the generator (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

3. Offsite transfer recycling under a tolling contract (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

Generators who currently recycle wastes either onsite or under either of the two offsite transfer arrangements for this exclusion, are 

expected to realize de-regulatory cost savings. This RIA estimates this potential impact in the form of future annual costs savings to 

industry, estimated by subtracting the estimated annual cost of future de-regulated recycling under this exclusion, from the estimated 

baseline (current) annual cost for RCRA-regulated recycling.

Limitations in the Exclusion 1 impact estimation methodology of this RIA are:

· Omission of shared captive offsite recycling: This RIA did not evaluate the potential for generator facilities owned or 

otherwise under “common control” (40 CFR 260.10(2)) by the same company to construct a shared (captive) offsite 

recycling unit in order to enhance the economy-of-scale feasibility for switchover from baseline disposal to offsite transfer 
32

recycling “within the same company”. This potential switchover is excluded from this RIA because of the complexity of the 

analysis it would require to assess (a) how many recycling units need to be constructed by each multi-facility company, (b) 

how many facilities might share in the construction and annual operating cost of each recycling unit, and (c) where these 

units might be constructed in relation to the locations of the multiple generator participants sharing each recycling unit. The 

effect of this omission on the net impact estimate of this RIA is explored in Sensitivity Analysis #10 (Chapter 12). 

· Omission of baseline offsite recycling switchover to onsite recycling under Exclusion 1: This RIA does not attempt to 

estimate whether facilities currently using offsite recycling which may experience DSW de-regulatory cost savings under 

Exclusion 2, may elect to switchover to onsite recycling to take advantage of Exclusion 1.

· Omission of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycling under Exclusion 1: As a corollary to the bullet above, this RIA 

does not attempt to estimate whether facilities currently disposing wastes either onsite or offsite, may shift the management 

of their wastes to recycling either onsite, under a tolling arrangement, or offsite “under their control” under Exclusion 1. 

Sensitivity Analysis #11 (Chapter 12) explores the potential magnitude of this omission on the net impact estimate of this 

RIA. However, potential baseline disposal switchover to future offsite recycling at commercial TSDRFs is evaluated in 

conjunction with Exclusion 2 in this RIA. This omission reflects the reported low likelihood that generators will begin new 

recycling operations onsite according to five industrial public commentors on the 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs summarized 

below. If only one or two single industry commentors had indicated a low likelihood involving a small subset of hazardous 

waste types, OSW would have retained this scenario in this 2008 RIA. However, three of the five commentors represent 

large associations of diverse industries (i.e., chemical mfg industries, metals mfg industries, electronics mfg industries)

potentially affected by the DSW final rule, therefore OSW decided to omit this scenario from this RIA (although it is 

included in OSW’s 2007 RIA for the 2007 DSW supplemental proposal). As identified by the five public commentors, 

disposal switchover to onsite recycling is not estimated in this RIA for 13 reasons:

1. Homogenous materials: Facilities within the same industry likely generate similar secondary materials that 

different industries need as inputs.

2. Closed loop exemption: Secondary materials generators already recycle onsite all that is feasible using the existing 

closed-loop exemption.

3. Expertise/infrastructure: Other industries, not the generator industry, have expertise/infrastructure to recycle the 

materials.

4. Cost-ineffective: Recycling is not cost-effective at most sites because the annual quantity is too small to 

justify onsite recycling capital investment.

5. Different business line: Onsite recycling operations would be viewed as separate business lines outside of the 

generator’s existing business.

6. Site/facility space: Industrial facilities (generators) do not have extra facility/property space for adding onsite 

recycling operations.
33

7. Capital investment: Industrial facilities (generators) do not have extra capital investment capacity for adding 

onsite recycling operations.

8. Skilled labor: Industrial facilities (generators) do not have skilled labor for adding and operating onsite 

recycling.

9. Outsourcing trend: A recent trend for manufacturing facilities is to focus on their core business line while 

outsourcing ancillary business lines such as recycling of secondary/byproduct materials.

10. Environmental permits: It is difficult for industrial facilities to obtain Federal/state environmental permits for 

onsite recycling operations.

11. Technical challenges:There are technical feasibility/compatibility challenges for adding onsite recycling operations.

12. Extra effort: Adding onsite recycling operations requires substantial extra level of effort for (a) 

separate materials packaging, (b) package/container labeling, (c) materials storing, and (d) 

materials transport/shipping.

13. Recycling quality: Concerns about the perceived/real quality of onsite recycling/recovery compared to offsite 

commercial recyclers.

These 13 reasons why baseline switchover to onsite recycling is unlikely are {enumerated} in the excerpts below:

1. American Chemistry Council (2002-0031-0093): “[F]acilities within a single NAICS code are {1} likely to produce 

very similar secondary materials and {2} if they cannot recycle them in an already permissible, closed-loop method, 

they are unlikely to be able to recycle them at all. It is much more likely that a different industrial operation, with 

needs for input material different from that of the generating industry, will find a use for the output of the generator... 

In actuality, like all industrial processes, reclamation is cost effective only with certain economies of scale. Thus it is 

{3} more likely that a company in another industry will have the expertise and industrial infrastructure to reclaim 

significant secondary materials from a different generating industry. For example, chemical operations generate 

secondary metals in catalyst production, but no chemical plant is likely to build a metal processing, beneficiation or 

smelting operation to address its material flows. It is more likely to seek out a company in the metal processing 

industry that also accepts and reclaims the secondary materials that others in its generating industry generate.

Another example might involve a large company generating many different spent solvent streams at many U.S. sites. 

While at some sites the volume and quality of spent solvents justifies the expense of installing on-site reclamation 

facilities, {4} at most sites, the volumes would be too small to justify the capital investment required to reclaim these 

materials. It is more likely that the materials would be sent off-site for commercial reclamation. Removal of the 

RCRA regulatory barriers from these streams will not change the economics such that reclamation facilities will be 

built on site. However, it may very well make the economics more favorable for commercial reclamation instead of 

disposal by lowering the transportation and management costs now associated with handling the material as a 

hazardous waste.”
34

2. International Metals Reclamation Company (2002-0031-0178): “[W]hen a generator makes a new capital investment 

to build a reclamation process on-site and staffs it with newly hired employees, {5} the reclamation activity probably 

should be viewed as a separate “establishment” from the generator’s pre-existing production process ... [W]ith 

respect to the metals sector ... the large capital investment needed to construct and operate a technologically 

sophisticated and economically efficient reclamation process demands that reclaiming operations be sized so as to 

realize economies of scale that individual generators cannot support... [R]egulatory-driven, economically inefficient 

investments in on-site reclamation processes would be avoided, and existing investments in third-party commercial 

reclamation facilities would not be stranded... [G]enerators would not have to make economically inefficient 

investments in on-site recovery facilities in order to qualify their secondary materials for the exclusion. Instead they 

could send their materials for off-site reclamation without regard to the NAICS code of the reclaimer. That would 

enable them to realize the reduction in regulatory costs without making new capital investments and operating 

expenditures that would not be made absent a regulatory driver.”

3. IPC Association of Connecting Electronics Industries (2002-0031-0112): “EPA's economic analysis of the [October 

2003 DSW] proposal's benefits attempts to show how industries could reconstitute their core businesses to encompass 

on-site recycling operations and thus reuse materials within the same generating industry. In the analysis, EPA 

attempted to quantify the amount of materials that would be recycled by comparing the break-even cost of onsite, 

within the same generating industry, waste recovery. IPC believes that EPA's analysis overestimates the potential 

benefit of the proposed rule because it is based on faulty data analysis, makes incorrect assumptions, and fails to 

analyze other factors contributing to the feasibility of onsite recycling. EPA's analysis did not consider whether the 

{6} space, {7} investment capital, and {8} skilled labor would be available for the construction and operation of these 

on-site reclamation facilities. The operation of the type of reclamation facilities envisioned in the economic analysis 

would require a significant quantity of personnel skilled in a set of operations that are completely divergent from core 

manufacturing processes. Recent trends in manufacturing operations are towards a {9} focus on core business, with as 

many ancillary operations as possible being outsourced. EPA's analysis ignores this trend. EPA's analysis also 

overlooks the {10} difficulty in obtaining environmental permits for onsite reclamation processes, particularly those 

associated with smelting. Most on-site precipitation recovery systems are well equipped to handle copper based 

solutions, but have difficulty with concentrated nickel and tin solutions, particularly when combined with chelating 

agents or fluorides. Facilities desiring to undertake on-site recovery of chelated nickel and tin solutions would face 

{11} technical challenges in addition to the {12} effort needed to separately package, label, store, and ship these 

additional metals.”

4. PPG Industries Inc. (2002-0031-0203): “Within our own industries, we are doing as much recycling as is economically

feasible. Nor can we envision installing new capital facilities for reclamation without much greater opportunities for 

available, affordable materials, and those opportunities principally lie between industries, not within them.”
35

5. Anonymous (2002-0031-0479): “[G]enerator's who are recycling for reuse likely will continue to ship their materials 

[offsite] long distances because of the {13} preference for the quality of the product they are accustomed to receiving 

from the [offsite] facilities that have been providing such products for years and have the institutional expertise to 

work closely with generators to produce such quality. As with any consumer, generators purchase not only on price 

but also on the reclaimer's ability to meet their specifications.”

· Indirect treatment of tolling arrangements: This RIA does not directly estimate baseline tolling arrangements for hazardous 

waste recycling, nor does it estimate future new tolling arrangements which may be induced by the DSW final rule. This is 

probably not a relatively large source of de-regulatory cost savings estimation in this RIA, because baseline offsite recycling 

(with or without tolling arrangements) is included in the impact estimation methodology of this RIA for Exclusion 2 below. 

However, this RIA does indirectly include estimation of potential impact on offsite recycling under tolling arrangements, by

using NAICS industry code 32519 “Other Organic Chemical Manufacturing” as a proxy indicator for recycling tolling 

arrangements. This NAICS code most closely (narrowly) represents the specialty batch chemical manufacturing industry as 

represented by the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Association (SOCMA), which requested OSW on 10 Feb 

2007 to add “toll manufacturing operations in the specialty batch chemical manufacturing sector” to the DSW final rule 

exclusions. The 2005 BR database indicates that a relatively small fraction of 2,125 tons/year (i.e., 0.06%) of the 3.82 

million tons/year reported for 187 waste streams generated by the NAICS 32519 industry, was managed by offsite recycling 

(i.e., by H010, H020, or H039).

· Exclusion 2: Transfer-Based Recycling Exclusion (addition of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) & 261.4(a)(25))

Exclusion 2 is similar to “Option 4” of the 2007 RIA. Exclusion 2 pertains to de-regulating two categories of offsite transfer of 

hazardous secondary materials for recycling, according to the 13 conditions/requirements summarized in Exhibit 3D below:

1. Offsite transfer: Materials that are generated and then transferred to another person for recycling (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24))

2. Exports transfer: Materials that are exported from the US for recycling in a foreign country (40 CFR 261.4(a)(25))

This RIA does not separately estimate industry cost savings impacts for these two different types (i.e., offsite and export) of recycling 

exclusions for Exclusion 2. The generator export tonnages and generator exporter facility counts are embedded in the generator 

impacts for this exclusion, but not separately reported. On an aggregate (i.e., combined) basis for both of these two exclusions for 

Exclusion 2, this RIA estimates two potential impacts:

1. Baseline recycling cost savings: Generators who currently recycle wastes offsite under the offsite transfer arrangement 

eligible for this exclusion, are expected to realize de-regulatory cost savings by either assuming:

o the baseline offsite commercial hazardous waste recycler (e.g., NAICS 562211) passes through de-regulatory cost 
36

savings to the generator by recycling the DSW-excluded material in a non-regulated recycling unit at the same offsite 

TSDF, or

o the generator elects to switch to an offsite non-RCRA commercial recycler (e.g., NAICS 56292 materials recovery

industry) presumed to offer a lower price in proportion to the de-regulatory costs savings.

This RIA estimates the potential future annual costs savings to generators for this potential impact by subtracting the 

estimated annual future cost of de-regulated offsite recycling under Exclusion 2, from the estimated baseline annual cost for 

RCRA-regulated offsite recycling.

2. Baseline disposal switchover to recycling: Generators currently disposing hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite may find 

it more economical to switch from disposal to commercial offsite recycling (e.g., NAICS 56292 materials recovery industry) 

under Exclusion 2. To estimate this potential impact, this RIA conducts a breakeven test (i.e., cost comparison) to determine 

if it may be economically feasible for generators to switchover disposal to commercial offsite recycling. This test is not 

conducted to estimate potential switchover to onsite recycling for the same reasons given in Exclusion 1 above.

An additional limitation in the Exclusion 2 impact estimation methodology of this RIA is:

· Indirect inclusion of intermediate middlemen: In addition to generators and recyclers, intermediate (middlemen) facilities 

(e.g., transfer facilities) are required to comply with the terms of this Exclusion 2. However, this RIA does not include or 

estimate a separate facility type category to represent intermediate facilities. Based on the 2005 RCRA National Biennial 

Report (Exhibit 3.9), 359 facilities reported receiving industrial hazardous waste from offsite for purpose of intermediate 

storage and transfer, representing only about 7% of the 8.5 million tons of hazardous waste shipped offsite in 2005. Given 

the fact that most of the 359 RCRA-reporting facilities are also TSDRFs involved in providing other waste management 

services (e.g., disposal, treatment, or recycling), this RIA probably includes most of them indirectly in the TSDRF impact 

estimates. However, this RIA does not base industry benefits and costs on the larger Economic Census count of potentially

affected intermediate facilities which may handle hazardous secondary materials under Exclusion 2. As summarized in 

Exhibit 10B of this RIA, the 2002 Economic Census implies that 2,565 establishments have product lines involving either 

hazardous or non-hazardous (a) waste & recycling brokerage (164 establishments), (b) waste & materials transfer or sorting 

(2,385 establishments), and (c) industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution (16 establishments). Consequently, this 

is a potential source of implementation cost under-estimation in this RIA, which may contribute to industry cost savings 

over-estimation in this RIA.
37

· Exclusion 3: Case-by-Case “Non-Waste Determination” Variance (amendments to 40 CFR 260.30 & 

260.33 & addition of 260.34)

Exclusion 3 is similar to “Option 6” of the 2007 RIA. Exclusion 3 adds the following two new materials categories to the three 

existing 40 CFR 260.30 RCRA non-waste determination variances from classification as a solid waste, according to the 3 conditions 

summarized in Exhibit 3D below:

1. Materials that are reclaimed in a continuous industrial process (addition of 40 CFR 260.30(d))

2. Materials that are indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or intermediate (addition of 40 CFR 260.30(e))

For purpose of estimating the potential impact of this exclusion, there is an existing RCRA hazardous waste program which may

provide a preliminary indicator of the number of cases per year that might be expected for this DSW exclusion: the case-by-case 

RCRA hazardous waste “delisting” program (40 CFR 260.22). According to a review of that program conducted by OSW in June 

200212, the RCRA delisting program granted a total 136 hazardous waste delistings over its initial 20-year period (1980 to 1999), 

which represents an average annual case-by-case activity level of about seven delistings completed per year. This RIA uses the 

average annual affected tonnage per-facility estimated in this RIA for Exclusion 1, for estimating the potential cost savings impact of 

Exclusion 3. For estimating the affected waste quantities and annual cost savings impacts, the number of affected facilities was 

determined using an arithmetic series (i.e., cumulative series) with seven facilities per year assumed to apply for a DSW variance 

(Exclusion 3) over a future 20-year period. This 20-year period mirrors the RCRA “delisting” reference study period. The mean of 

the 7 per-year arithmetic series over 20 years is 73.5 (say 74) average annual affected facilities. This RIA uses an annual average of 74 

affected facilities for estimating the potential annual impact of this Exclusion.

· Legitimate Recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.43)

The 2008 DSW final rule includes a requirement that reclamation must be legitimate for all of the final rule exclusions and non-waste 

determination processes. Because the four factors being added to 40 CFR 260.43 are substantively the same as the current legitimacy

policy articulated since 1989 (“Lowrance Memo”; OSWER directive 9441.1989(19), 26 April 1989), and applied by state governments 

to determine “legitimate” from “sham” industrial recycling, this RIA assumes that the 2008 DSW final rule’s legitimacy factors will 

have a small impact not quantified in this RIA. The basis for this assumption is the DSW final rule legitimacy factors are not 

substantively different than OSW’s longstanding policy since 1989, as OSW explained in the 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal:

12 USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division (EMRAD), “RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting: The First 20 Years (Program 

Evaluation)”, prepared by Abt Associates and Glenn Farber (EMRAD Regulatory Impact Analyst), June 2002, 32 pages; 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/delist
38

“As part of proposing regulatory provisions on the legitimacy of recycling, we are simply reorganizing, 

streamlining, and clarifying the existing legitimacy principles. We believe that the regulatory definition 

of legitimate recycling, when applied to specific recycling scenarios, will result in determinations that 

are consistent with the earlier policy. Therefore, we generally do not see the need for the regulated 

community or overseeing agencies to revisit previous determinations and expect any written 

determinations from these agencies to, in effect, be grandfathered.” (p.14198 of OSW’s 26 March 2007 

DSW supplemental re-proposal).
39

Chapter 4

Data for Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially De-Regulated by the DSW Final Rule

4A. Primary Data Source for Identifying Industries, Facilities & Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected

The 2008 DSW final rule potentially impacts industrial hazardous secondary materials that are already defined in the 40 CFR 261.2 

RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) regulations as “solid wastes” and are being managed as RCRA “hazardous wastes” under 

current RCRA Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR 260 to 299). The 2008 DSW final rule is designed to revise the RCRA DSW by

excluding certain RCRA hazardous wastes recycled for metal, solvent or other materials (e.g., acid recovery). These wastes will be 

considered as “hazardous secondary materials” under the DSW rule and will not be defined as “solid wastes” subject to RCRA 

Subtitle C regulation. This chapter defines the dataset of currently regulated hazardous waste recycling that may become de-regulated 

under the DSW rule by excluded designation as “hazardous secondary materials” rather than as RCRA “hazardous wastes”, which 

forms the physical basis in this RIA for estimating potential industry cost savings from de-regulation of baseline recycling.

As of 2007, RCRA regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 261.2(3) and 261.4(a)) provide 16 DSW exclusions for recycling of certain types 

of industrial hazardous secondary materials (see Exhibit 2A). The earliest DSW exclusion dates back to 1985. Consequently, the 

respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by the 2008 DSW revisions final rule does not apply

to these currently excluded industries and hazardous secondary materials. OSW does not have data on the nationwide annual 

quantities of hazardous wastes which are excluded form the DSW and which are no longer subject to biennial reporting to the USEPA 

under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm) is a 

census of the company identity, location, industrial sources, waste types, waste quantities, and methods of hazardous waste generation, 

shipment, receipt, and management (i.e., treatment, disposal, recovery) at two classes of RCRA-regulated facilities:

· LQGs: RCRA hazardous waste large quantity generators (i.e., sites which generate 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) or 

more of hazardous waste in any single calendar month). LQGs are required to complete a single “Form GM” 

for each hazardous waste generated in each data year. In 2005, 16,191 LQGs submitted about 225,000 GM 

forms to the RCRA Biennial Report The count of GM forms indicates the count of waste streams generated by

LQGs in each data year.

· TSDRFs: RCRA hazardous waste TSDR facilities are required to complete a “Form WR” for all hazardous wastes 

received in the data year. Each Form WR contains three separate “waste blocks” for reporting data on up to 

three separate waste streams received from different generators. In 2005, 1,550 TSDRFs submitted about 

832,000 WR form waste blocks to the Biennial Report. The count of WR form waste blocks indicates the 

count of waste streams received by TSDRFs in each data year.
40

The Biennial Report (BR) includes both one-time generated industrial wastes (e.g., equipment closure, corrective action site cleanup) 

as well as annually recurring generated industrial process wastes. This database is the primary source used in this RIA to identify the 

current (i.e., baseline) hazardous wastes generated that have the potential to become excluded from RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction 

under the 2008 DSW final rule. Small quantity generators (i.e., SQGs which generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month) 

and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (i.e., CESQGs which generate less than 100 kilograms per month) are not required 

to submit hazardous waste data to the BR. However, SQG waste quantities may be reflected in the BR because SQGs typically rely on 

offsite commercial TSDRFs for management of their hazardous wastes.

The BR is the most complete set of data on industrial hazardous waste generation available given it is a census of LQGs and 

TSDRFs. It is the best existing database for evaluating changes to RCRA regulations, given the fact that data are reported on the waste 

stream level by single facilities (some facilities may generate multiple and different waste streams within any given year). As 

mentioned previously, the Biennial Report does not explicitly include data for SQGs and CESQGs. Consequently, the regulatory cost 

savings estimates might be expected to increase if the universe of SQGs and CESQGs were explicitly included in this RIA. However, 

this increase would mostly occur from addition of SQG data because CESQGs are already excluded from most RCRA regulations.13

13 SQGs: The exclusion of SQGs from this analysis reflects the RCRA exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. 

Consequently, USEPA does not collect regularly updated data on RCRA waste volumes generated by SQGs. Omission of explicit data on SQGs does not 

necessarily mean that this analysis excludes small and medium size companies for the following reasons:

· Not all SQGs necessarily represent small or medium size companies, and not all LQGs represent large companies, based on either (a) company employee 

count or (b) company annual sales revenues, two alternative measures used by the Small Business Administration to define “small business” 

(http://www.sba.gov/size).

· Furthermore, many SQGs are not in the same industries and markets with LQGs; for example, the top-5 largest LQG industries in 2003 based on annual tons 

waste generated are (1) NAICS 3251 Basic Chemical Mfg, (2) NAICS 3241 Petroleum & Coal Products Mfg, (3) NAICS Waste Treatment & Disposal, (4) 

NAICS 3252 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic Fibers & Filaments Mfg, and (5) NAICS 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloy Mfg, all of which are 

capital-intensive industries predominantly populated with relatively larger size companies (source: Exhibit 1.9 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/national03.pdf). In contrast, SQGs are predominantly in different industries; for example, the top-5 SQG 

industries in aggregate constituting 98.3% SQGs and only 1.7% LQGs are (1) NAICS 8111 Automotive Repair & Maintenance, (2) NAICS 3231 Printing & 

Related Support Activities, (3) NAICS 332 Fabricated Metal Product Mfg , (4) NAICS 4411 Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers, and (5) NAICS 5111 Print 

Publishing Industries, based on estimated establishment counts in OSW’s July 2003 economic impact analysis for the RCRA spent solvent industrial wipes 

proposed rule (see page 90 of document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0004-0004 at http://www.regulations.gov).

· Although there is not necessarily a high degree of correlation in any single industry between RCRA regulatory status (i.e., LQG, SQG, CESQG) and facility 

size measured by employee count or annual revenues, comparison of respective RCRA biennial hazardous waste generation volumes (i.e., tons per year) 

indicate that SQGs are probably much smaller in average size than LQGs. Consequently, most SQGs send their wastes offsite for treatment, disposal or 

recycling by commercial hazardous waste management facilities because they lack economy-of-scale to manage the wastes themselves, and for other business 

reasons. Based on 1997 data (source: Steven Brown, Margaret James & Gary Light, ICF Consulting, “SQG Up-Date” 31 July 2000 memorandum to Peggy 

Vyas, OSW), there are about 114,000 SQGs which generate a total of between 600,000 to 930,000 tons/year of RCRA hazardous waste, which represents an 

average SQG waste size of 5.3 to 8.2 tons/year. As an example, if this average SQG volume consisted of spent solvents, it would be equivalent to 24 to 37 

barrels per year, or 2 to 3 barrels per month (@8 lbs/gallon and @55 gallons/barrel). Compared to the 17,700 LQGs which generate 30,176,000 tons for an 

average LQG waste size of 1,705 tons/year (as of 2003) --- which represents 7,750 barrels per year or 646 barrels per month of spent solvent as an example 

waste material --- SQGs are only 0.3% to 0.5% the size of an average LQG. OSW does not expect SQGs will experience an adverse disproportional effect of 

the DSW final rule if SQGs lack economy-of-scale to justify capital investment in new generator controlled recycling operations, because SQGs are 

alternatively eligible for DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion (i.e., Exclusion 2 in this RIA).
41

4B. 2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data

Exhibits 4A to 4G below summarize the Biennial Report (BR) dataset for baseline hazardous waste recycling for data year 2005. Data 

year 2005 is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year because the more recent data year 2007 will not be available 

until December 200814. The BR database only contains the primary NAICS code for each waste generator and waste management 

facility. However, many industrial facilities have more than one NAICS code corresponding to different types of industrial operations 

within a single facility, but the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported under a single NAICS code for each 

single facility in the BR dataset.

For each BR historical data year (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005) the national total “management” 

quantity (tons) does not necessarily equal the national total “generation” quantity (tons) because: (a) some hazardous waste tonnages 

may be double-counted in “management” because they undergo two or more management steps in a management train, (b) some 

wastes may have been generated near year-end but managed (i.e., treated, recycled or disposed) in the next year, (c) export of 

generated wastes for management in other countries, and (d) import of wastes generated in other countries for management in the US.

Exhibit 4A below summarizes the three types of recycling included in the RCRA Biennial Report, and their associated 2005 

count of facilities and hazardous waste management tonnages, distinguished between onsite and offsite recycling.

14 According to USEPA’s Biennial Report website (as of March 2008), the 2007 Biennial Report data will not be published on the internet until December 2008: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm
42

Exhibit 4A

Three Categories of RCRA Hazardous Waste Baseline Recycling (2005*)

A B C D E (C+D) F G H (F+G)

2005 Count of Facilities Recycling 2005 Quantity Recycled (tons per year)

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category

(Biennial Report management code**)

2005 count of 

facilities 

generating 

wastes that are 

recycled

2005 count 

of waste 

streams that 

are recycled Onsite

Offsite 

(Received 

from offsite)

Total 

facilities Onsite

Offsite 

(Received 

from offsite)

Total

(tons/year)

H010: Metals recovery: high 

temperature metals recovery, retorting, 

secondary smelting, & other metals 

recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse 

osmosis, acid leaching).

2,352 5,335 57 96 137 233,214 1,187,107

1,420,320

(69%)

H020: Solvents recovery: fractionation/ 

distillation, thin film evaporation, & 

solvent extraction.

2,466 6,322 444 57 493 69,565 227,117

296,681

(15%)

H039: Other recovery: acid 

regeneration, waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organic liquids recovery, & other 

miscellaneous recovery methods except 

energy recovery or use as fuel.

829 1,733 45 36 74 153,345 174,834

328,180

(16%)

Non-duplicative totals = 4,809 13,348

529

(81%)

159

(24%)

656

(100%)

456,124

(22%)

1,589,058

(78%)

2.045 

million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

· * All data represents counts and quantities included in the 2005 National Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf.

Some facilities recycled wastes in more than one management method, and some facilities both generated onsite and received from offsite. Thus, the facility 

counts and percentages will sum to more than 100%.

· ** Beginning with BR data year 2001, USEPA changed the BR hazardous waste management codes. For a comparison of the new waste management codes 

with pre-2001 codes, see p.81 of “2001 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms”: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/ins-frms.pdf
43

Exhibit 4B below compares the 2005 baseline recycling data (Columns E & F) to data on hazardous waste total generation (Columns 

A & B) and to total management (Columns C & D), according to 2-digit NAICS code economic sub-sector.

Exhibit 4B

Identity of Industries Generating & Recycling RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled (2005)*

A B C D E F G (F/D)x100 H (100%-G)

Waste Generation Waste Management Waste Recycling

Item

Economic Sub-Sector

(2-digit NAICS Code)

Count of 

LQGs

Tons Per Year 

Generated Count of TSDFs

Tons Per Year 

Managed

Count of 

Recyclers

Tons Per Year 

Recycled % Recycled

% Not 

Recycled

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 14 5,833 - - - - - -

2 21 Mining 118 37,427 3 70,571 1 3 < 0.1% >99.9%

3 22 Utilities 474 194,090 9 1,469 3 54 3.7% 96.3%

4 23 Construction 232 18,084 6 118 4 11 9.5% 90.5%

5 31 Manufacturing 160 14,145 10 5,091 5 350 6.9% 93.1%

6 32 Manufacturing 4,150 29,211,960 492 32,449,736 232 575,988 1.8% 98.2%

7 33 Manufacturing 6,234 5,746,674 547 4,649,586 252 1,215,208 26.1% 73.9%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 567 188,008 27 128,978 11 19,298 15.0% 85.0%

9 44 Retail Trade 359 23,599 1 8 1 8 100.0% 0.0%

10 45 Retail Trade 28 3,008 - - - - - -

11 48 Transportation 798 157,075 23 609,197 7 177 < 0.1% >99.9%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 231 140,023 8 120,477 0 0 0.0% 100.0%

13 51 Information 119 3,938 51 14,038 2 12,781 91.0% 9.0%

14 52 Finance & Insurance 3 356 - - - - - -

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 77 14,423 10 966 2 2 0.2% 99.8%

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 522 27,203 34 60,432 8 9 < 0.1% >99.9%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 12 868 2 156,889 0 0 0.0% 100.0%

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 615 2,344,388 182 5,513,610 65 220,824 4.0% 96.0%

19 61 Educational Services 439 33,719 37 164 22 78 47.6% 52.4%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 235 11,322 27 2,833 24 153 5.4% 94.6%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 34 5,165 1 3 1 3 100.0% 0.0%

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 2 157 - - - - - -

23 81 Other Services 303 24,261 9 3,699 3 13 0.4% 99.6%

24 92 Public Administration 465 141,287 71 135,998 13 222 0.2% 99.8%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 - - - - - -

Column totals = 16,191 38,347,011 1,550 43,923,861 656 2.045 million 4.7% 95.3%

Explanatory Notes:

· Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short-ton").

· (-) No management was reported in 2005. Recycling can not be determined for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by storage). 
44

Exhibit 4C below presents the 2005 data for the three recycling methods (i.e., H010, H020, H039) according to 2-digit NAICS 

economic sub-sector.

Exhibit 4C

Annual Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled by Type of Generator Industry (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item

Generator Industry

2-digit NAICS code

Managed by H010 

Metals Recovery

(tons per year)

Managed by H020 

Solvents Recovery

(tons per year)

Managed by H039 

Other Recovery

(tons per year)

Row Totals Managed by 

Recovery

(tons per year)

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting - - - - -

2 21 Mining 0 0 3 3 < 0.1%

3 22 Utilities 53 1 0 54 < 0.1%

4 23 Construction 0 11 0 11 < 0.1%

5 31 Manufacturing 0 350 0 350 < 0.1%

6 32 Manufacturing 251,577 107,363 217,048 575,988 28.2%

7 33 Manufacturing 1,157,453 10,280 47,475 1,215,208 59.4%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 2357 14,873 2,068 19,298 0.9%

9 44 Retail Trade 0 8 0 8 < 0.1%

10 45 Retail Trade - - - - -

11 48 Transportation 145 32 0 177 < 0.1%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 0 0 0 0 0.0%

13 51 Information 0 12,781 0 12,781 0.6%

14 52 Finance & Insurance - - - - -

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 2 0 2 < 0.1%

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 0 9 0 9 < 0.1%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 0 0.0%

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 8,581 150,840 61,402 220,824 10.8%

19 61 Educational Services 26 51 1 78 < 0.1%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 85 62 6 153 < 0.1%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 3 0 3 < 0.1%

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services - - - - -

23 81 Other Services 9 4 0 13 < 0.1%

24 92 Public Administration 34 10 178 222 < 0.1%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Column totals = 1,420,320 296,681 328,180 2.045 million 100.0%

· (-) No management was reported in 2005 (excluding management by storage). Recycling can not be determined for wastes that have no management 

information (including storage of wastes).
45

Exhibit 4D below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the types of industrial processes (i.e., Biennial Report Gxxx 

codes) which generated the hazardous waste that is being recycled.

Exhibit 4D

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item

Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code

H010 Metals 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H020 Solvents 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H039 Other 

Recovery

(tons/year)

Total Recovery

(tons/year)

1 G01 Dip, flush or spray rinsing 0 4,392 170 4,562 0.2%

2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 0 0 257 257 < 0.1%

3 G03 Plating & phosphating 6,006 22 0 6,028 0.3%

4 G04 Etching 0 32 172 204 < 0.1%

5 G05 Metal forming & treatment 1,773 0 0 1,773 0.1%

6 G06 Painting & coating 0 4,001 15 4,015 0.2%

7 G07 Product & by-product processing 171,889 19,217 15,579 206,685 10.1%

8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 442 2,374 14,573 17,389 0.9%

9 G09 Other production or service-related processes 2,355 4,526 141 7,022 0.3%

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 182,466 34,564 30,905 247,935 12.1%

10 G11 Discarding off-spec or out-of-date chemicals or products 1,588 361 28,733 30,682 1.5%

11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection 0 0 0 0 0.0%

12 G13 Cleaning-out process equipment 0 17,673 1,661 19,334 0.9%

13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 588 134 7,006 7,728 0.4%

14 G15 Process equipment change-out or discontinuation of use 0 18 62 81 < 0.1%

15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement 2 0 5 7 < 0.1%

16 G19 Other one-time or intermittent processes 31 0 124 155 < 0.1%

Subtotal one-time or intermittent events or processes = 2,210 18,186 37,590 57,986 2.8%

17 G21 Air pollution control devices 8,758 0 280 9,038 0.4%

18 G22 Lab analytical wastes 6 99 167 272 < 0.1%

19 G23 Wasetewater treatment 369 0 3,292 3,661 0.2%

20 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery 2 7,969 24,856 32,827 1.6%

21 G25 Hazardous waste management 22,313 3,362 649 26,324 1.3%

22 G26 Leachate collection 0 0 0 0 0.0%

23 G27 Residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 16,685 0 29 16715 0.8%

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 48,133 11,430 29,274 88,837 4.3%

24 G31 Accidental contamination of materials, containers 0 0 0 0 0.0%

25 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine) 0 0 0 0 0.0%

26 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 37 0 0 37 < 0.1%

27 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 37 0 0 37 < 0.1%
46

Exhibit 4D

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item

Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code

H010 Metals 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H020 Solvents 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H039 Other 

Recovery

(tons/year)

Total Recovery

(tons/year)

28 G41 Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA 0 0 0 0 0.0%

29 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA 0 315 49,140 49,456 2.4%

30 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA 0 0 0 0 0.0%

31 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 0 1,250 0 1,250 0.1%

32 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup 0 0 693 693 < 0.1%

33 G49 Other remediation 0 0 5,593 5,593 0.3%

Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 0 1,565 55,426 56,992 2.8%

34 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer 0 3,820 21 3,840 0.2%

35 G63 to G75 Imported from a foreign country 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 0 3,820 21 3,840 0.2%

36 G?? Source code not provided 1,187,107 227,117 174,834 1,589,058 77.7%

Column totals = 1,420,320 296,681 328,180 2.045 million 100.0%
47

Exhibit 4E below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the types of chemical/physical forms of the wastes (i.e., Biennial 

Report Wxxx codes) which are being recycled.

Exhibit 4E

Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

H010 Metals 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H020 Solvents 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H039 Other 

Recovery

(tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 44 16 1 61 < 0.1%

2 W002 Contaminated debris 1,228 5,386 3 6,617 0.3%

3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 1 0 0 1 < 0.1%

4 W301 Contaminated soil 74 48 21,949 22,071 1.1%

5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 813,751 < 1 3,453 817,205 40%

6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon 138 2,279 9,222 11,639 0.6%

7 W320 Electrical devices 559 0 1 560 < 0.1%

8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds 3 0 129 131 < 0.1%

9 W801 Compressed gases 2,556 1 1 2,558 0.1%

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 818,354 7,731 34,759 860,843 42.1%

10 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 1,489 3,089 44,297 48,876 2.4%

11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 16,496 30 2,550 19,077 0.9%

12 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 258 1 18 277 < 0.1%

13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 614 0 0 614 < 0.1%

14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 7,290 26 279 7,595 0.4%

15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 7,293 4,420 10 11,723 0.6%

16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 80 < 1 < 1 81 < 0.1%

17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 6,544 803 5,506 12,852 0.6%

Subtotal inorganic liquids = 40,065 8,370 52,660 101,094 4.9%

18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 114 3,340 241 3,695 0.2%

19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 0 25,469 885 26,355 1.3%

20 W203 Concentrated non-halogenated solvent 3 104,945 729 105,677 5.2%

21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non-halo solvent mixture < 1 14,544 4,016 18,560 0.9%

22 W205 Oil-water emulsion/mixture 0 1,289 3,993 5,283 0.3%

23 W206 Waste oil 0 7 14 21 < 0.1%

24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 15 10,902 20 10,937 0.5%

25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives 0 899 1,359 2,258 0.1%

26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates < 1 46,737 0 46,737 2.3%

27 W219 Other organic liquid 49 12,187 83,833 96,069 4.7%

Subtotal organic liquids = 182 220,321 95,090 315,593 15.4%

28 W303 Ash 7,039 0 0 7,039 0.3%
48

Exhibit 4E

Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

H010 Metals 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H020 Solvents 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H039 Other 

Recovery

(tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 57,088 0 59 57,147 2.8%

30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 39 < 1 < 1 39 < 0.1%

31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems 16 0 0 16 < 0.1%

32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 568 1 157 727 < 0.1%

33 W319 Other inorganic solids 479,845 870 14,816 495,531 24.2%

Subtotal inorganic solids = 544,596 871 15,032 560,499 27.4%

34 W401 Pesticide solids 0 < 1 0 < 1 < 0.1%

35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 3 250 3,419 3,671 0.2%

36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 3 0 0 3 < 0.1%

37 W409 Other organic solids 2,315 2,695 18,990 24,000 1.2%

Subtotal organic solids = 2,320 2,945 22,409 27,674 1.4%

38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 1,126 0 0 1,126 0.1%

39 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 9 0 0 9 < 0.1%

40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 455 0 0 455 < 0.1%

41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 346 1 < 1 347 < 0.1%

42 W506 Cyanide-bearing sludges 4 0 0 4 < 0.1%

43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 505 19 271 794 < 0.1%

Subtotal inorganic sludges = 2,445 20 271 2,736 0.1%

44 W603 Oily sludge 0 193 5,068 5,262 0.3%

45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 0 1,714 7 1,721 0.1%

46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge 0 24 1,638 1,662 0.1%

47 W609 Other organic sludge 3 433 4,897 5,332 0.3%

Subtotal organic sludges = 3 2,364 11,610 13,977 0.7%

48 W??? Physical form code not provided 12,356 54,061 96,348 162,766 8.0%

Totals = 1,420,320 296,681 328,180 2.045 million 100.0%
49

Exhibit 4F below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the types of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste designation 

regulatory codes (i.e., Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx codes) which are being recycled.

Exhibit 4F

RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Waste Codes Assigned to Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item RCRA Waste Code

H010 Metals

Recovery

(tons/year)

H020 Solvents 

Recovery

(tons/year)

H039 Other 

Recovery

(tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

1 Dxxx 1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes only 899,716 134,402 198,166 1,232,284 60.3%

2 Fxxx 1 or more non-specific industrial source waste codes

only

4,029 46,017 12,799 62,846 3.1%

3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only 481,123 0 23,263 504,386 24.7%

4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off-spec 

commercial chemical products, container residues & 

spill residues thereof

0 0 96 96 < 0.1%

5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical 

products, manufacturing intermediates, or off-spec 

commercial chemical products

< 1 610 3,097 3,708 0.2%

6 Mixed Assigned with 2 or more waste code categories above 35,124 95,767 90,748 221,639 10.8%

7 ???? Waste code not provided 328 19,885 9 20,223 1.0%

Column totals = 1,420,320 296,681 328,180 2.045 million 100.0%

Exhibit 4G below indicates the respective fractions (i.e., associated tonnages and percentages) for each of the three recycling methods 

which involve recycling “acute” hazardous wastes. Solid wastes shall be listed under RCRA Subtitle C as “acute hazardous wastes” if 

they either:

· Have been found to be fatal to humans in low doses, or

· Have been shown in studies to have an oral LD 50 toxicity (rate) of less than 50 milligrams per kilogram, an inhalation LC 50 

toxicity (rat) of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a dermal LD 50 toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200 milligrams per kilogram, or

· Are otherwise capable of causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, 

illness (Source: 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)).

As codified in the 01 July 2006 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), RCRA "acute hazardous wastes” are designated 

with the hazard code (H) and include:

· All 239 Pxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.33(e) are designated as "acute hazardous (H)" wastes.

· Six of the 28 Fxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.31 are designated as "acute hazardous (H)" wastes: F020, F021, F022, 

F023, F026, and F027.
50

Exhibit 4G

Prevalence of RCRA "Acute Hazardous" Waste Recycling (2005)

Recycling method

(Biennial Report management code)

Recycling method definition

2005 BR annual total tons 

recycled

(onsite + offsite tons)

2005 Quantity of "acute

hazardous" waste recycled*

(onsite + offsite tons)

% of RCRA hazardous waste recycling 

involving "acute hazardous" wastes

(onsite + offsite)

H010: Metals recovery 1,420,320 334 0.02%

H020: Solvents recovery 296,681 19,885 0.97%

H039: Other recovery 328,180 161 0.01%

Column totals = 2.045 million 20,381 1.00%

Explanatory Notes:

Source: Query of USEPA 2005 RCRA Biennial Report (BR) based on selecting recycleing data corresponding to (a) all of the Pxxx codes and (b) six of 

the 28 Fxxx codes which are designated as “acute” hazardous wastes in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR .261.33 and 261.31, respectively).

Note: The baseline hazardous waste recycling tonnage evaluated in this RIA for potential de-regulatory cost savings is 1.514 million 

tons, not 2.045 million tons as shown in Exhibits 4A to 4G above. The 2.045 million tons is based on the RCRA Biennial 

Report (BR) standard data programming logic that totals BR Form GM on-site recycling tonnage data plus BR Form WR waste 

received tonnage data for offsite recycling. Given the baseline recycling tonnage displayed in Exhibits 4A to 4G are meant to 

equal the tonnages presented in Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the 2005 “National Analysis” RCRA Biennial Report

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf), the same data query logic were used to complete Exhibits

4A to 4G of this RIA. In comparison, the 1.514 million tons baseline recycling shown in Exhibit 9F (column C) of this RIA 

uses an alternative BR data programming logic that totals BR Form GM on-site recycling tonnage data plus BR Form GM offsite shipment tonnage data for recycling. Hazardous waste tonnage mass balance does not exist in the BR database for any

given year, between what the generator reports shipping offsite for recycling on BR Form GM, and what the TSDR facilities 

report receiving from generators for recycling on BR Form WR. Also note that the recycling tonnages presented in Exhibits 

4A through 4G above will not match the baseline recycling tonnages presented in Exhibits 9D and 9F and used in the deregulatory cost savings analysis. Exhibits 4A through 4G present the national baseline recycling picture based on BR data 

reporting logic. However, the recycling quantities presented will be higher than those used in the cost analysis and presented in 

Exhibits 9D and 9F. The discrepancy is due to the following:

o The on-site recycling tonnages in Exhibit 4A (column E) are sums of the tonnages reported in Form GM, Section 1F. 

Quantity Generated in 2005. The on-site recycling tonnages used in the cost savings analysis of this RIA are those reported 

in Form GM, Section2, On-site Process System 1 and On-site Process System 2. These numbers sometimes do not match 

because either:

§ There is a data reporting or data entry error, or

§ Not all of the quantity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or

§ Not all of the quantity generated in 2005 was recovered in 2005.
51

o Source code G61 received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite waste is excluded in the cost savings analysis 

given the waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 4D, Item 34) by the generator.

o The off-site recycling totals in Exhibit 4A (column F) are based on Form WR data for wastes received from off site for 

management. The off-site recycling tonnages used in the cost savings analysis (Exhibits 9D and 9F) are based on Form 

GM reported shipment tonnages to off-site recycling (i.e., Form GM, Section 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3).
52

Chapter 5

Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Recycling

5A. Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline

The DSW rule may induce more recycling of hazardous wastes which are disposed, because the potential for net cost savings under the 

new DSW exclusions if wastes are recycled, may provide an economic incentive for some facilities to switchover from disposal to 

recycling, either by using offsite commercial recyclers, or by investing and operating onsite recycling operations. This RIA only

evaluates the possibility of disposal switchover to commercial offsite recycling for the reasons given in Chapter 3 (Section 3C). The 

entire quantity of each waste potentially switching-over to recycling is used to estimate total cost savings post-rule, not just the 

valuable portion (i.e., constituent) of the waste. The generator sends along all the waste to the recycler and then the recoverer extracts 

the valuable constituent. So, when calculating cost savings to the generators it’s the entire quantity (i.e., waste matrix mass) that is 

relevant.

The disposal baseline forms the basis in this RIA, for evaluating the potential for disposed wastes to switch from disposal to 

recycling, based on (a) the market value of the primary constituent material (e.g., metal or organic solvent) in the disposed waste, in 

comparison to (b) their current estimated average annual cost for disposal. This RIA estimates the future potential for switchover by

applying a “breakeven test” which determines on a micro-level waste stream-by-waste stream basis (i.e., not on either a facility-byfacility basis nor industry-by-industry basis), whether the net annual market value of the recovered metal, solvent or other material, 

would at least offset by a minimum of $0.01, the current average annual cost for disposing the waste stream.

The series of Exhibits 5A to 5E below provide an overview of the 2005 RCRA hazardous waste disposal baseline. As 

displayed in Exhibit 5A below, note that two beneficial disposal methods are included in this RIA (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as

fuel, and H061 blending waste for use as fuel offsite), in addition to 22 non-beneficial disposal methods. Although H050 energy

recovery and H061 fuel blending are in-eligible methods for the DSW final rule exclusions, these two methods are included in this 

section of the RIA only for the purpose of evaluating them for potential switchover to future recycling.15

15 In its comments to the Docket on OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW re-proposal (comment ID nr. 2002-0031-0548), the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) 

specifically requested that OSW analyze “the degree to which the [DSW revisions final] rule will adversely affect this desirable practice [of energy recovery from 

hazardous wastes in cement kilns]” and .”would encourage energy-bearing hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns 

and towards other less-regulated forms of recycling.”
53

Exhibit 5A

Summary of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2005)

A B C D E F G H I J (H+I)

2005 Count of Facilities Disposing 2005 Tons Disposed (management quantity)

Item

Disposal 

method 

Code Disposal description

Count of 

disposed 

waste 

streams Onsite

Offsite

(Received)

Total facilities

(nonduplicative)Onsite

(tons/year)

Offsite

(tons/year)

Total

(tons/year)

A. Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1 H050 Energy Recovery 9,341 70 44 99 668,669 1,050,721 1,719,390

2 H061 Fuel Blending 37,393 34 87 105 152,994 1,021,631 1,174,625

Subtotal beneficial disposal = 46,296 102 118 188 821,663 2,072,352 2,894,015

B. Non-Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=22):

1 H040 Incineration 63,402 114 88 164 890,681 547,315 1,437,996

2 H071 Chemical Reduction 1,928 69 28 95 309,722 38,377 348,099

3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 335 33 10 43 70,817 1,582 72,399

4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 229 4 9 13 1,386 55,266 56,652

5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 14 1 2 3 2 36 38

6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 4,598 75 29 103 1,080,828 147,569 1,228,397

7 H081 Biological Treatment 1,310 29 16 41 1,352,875 52,098 1,404,974

8 H082 Adsorption 165 14 9 22 1,308,179 5,069 1,313,248

9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 81 15 1 16 637,876 25 637,901

10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 222 42 11 52 28,522 660 29,182

11 H103 Absorption 61 8 1 9 486,817 4 486,820

12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 11,137 104 43 140 52,920 371,654 424,573

13 H112 Macro-Encapsulation 729 12 10 21 898 460 1,358

14 H121 Neutralization Only 3,081 116 36 148 1,470,724 70,276 1,541,000

15 H122 Evaporation 155 51 3 52 27,821 1,836 29,657

16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 65 13 2 15 19,845 15,977 35,822

17 H124 Phase Separation 177 18 10 26 12,240 148 12,388

18 H129 Other Treatment 3,637 142 60 193 2,402,527 200,160 2,602,687

19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 1,082 11 10 20 3,204 44 3,248

20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 9,526 45 44 68 601,437 1,436,105 2,037,543

21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 1,635 39 13 46 21,517,154 329,538 21,846,692

22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 1,018 94 27 118 2,457,774 976,216 3,433,990

Subtotal non-beneficial disposal = 102,443 805 224 944 34,734,248 4,250,416 38,984,665

Column totals = 211,791** 870

(84%)

274

(27%)

1,032

(100%)

35,555,911

(85%)

6,322,769

(15%)

41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more sequential treatment methods prior to ultimate disposal (i.e., final disposition.) This exhibit represents ultimate disposal 

methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and from Form WR for offsite disposal. Tonnages for management method code H141 (wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or 

disposal at the transferring site) are not included in this exhibit because transfer does not represent ultimate disposal. ** However, waste stream counts in this exhibit include wastes managed by H141 only, of 

which there were a total of 64,666 Form GMs. 146,019 Form GMs reported wastes managed exclusively by some disposal method (i.e., were not also managed by a recycle method, ignoring null and storage 

(H141) codes on form). Thus, 1,106 Form GMs reported wastes managed by a mix of recycle and disposal methods.
54

Exhibit 5B

Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D (B+C) E F G H (F+G)

Generation Location of Disposed (Tons Per Year)* Disposal Location of Disposed (Tons Per Year)

Item

Economic Subsector

(2-digit NAICS Code)

Count of 

facilities

Generation 

disposed

Onsite

Generation

shipped offsite 

for disposal

Total generation 

disposed

Count of 

facilities

Beneficial 

disposal**

Non-beneficial 

disposal*** Total disposal

1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 14 0 9,315 9,315 - - - -

2 21 Mining 98 1,185 32,346 33,531 3 69,381 1,188 70,569

3 22 Utilities 380 8 189,634 189,641 8 2 1,414 1,415

4 23 Construction 200 103 16,660 16,763 2 0 107 107

5 31 Manufacturing 141 4,741 6,984 11,725 5 < 1 4,740 4,741

6 32 Manufacturing 3,628 29,420,925 1,974,949 31,395,874 292 1,800,449 30,073,299 31,873,748

7 33 Manufacturing 5,281 3,406,745 1,539,132 4,945,877 329 93 3,434,285 3,434,378

8 42 Wholesale Trade 476 95,741 61,238 156,978 18 2,805 106,876 109,680

9 44 Retail Trade 264 0 8,640 8,640 - - - -

10 45 Retail Trade 22 0 2,810 2,810 - - - -

11 48 Transportation 657 608,595 106,809 715,403 16 13 609,007 609,020

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 197 11,010 142,686 153,696 8 83,099 37,378 120,477

13 51 Information 91 1,257 485 1,741 50 0 1,257 1,257

14 52 Finance & Insurance 3 0 318 318 - - - -

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 69 1 9,404 9,405 10 0 964 964

16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 453 60,056 20,723 80,779 27 0 60,422 60,422

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 12 156,886 833 157,720 2 0 156,889 156,889

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 585 1,652,856 1,567,260 3,220,116 163 938,069 4,354,717 5,292,786

19 61 Educational Services 365 71 26,715 26,786 21 2 84 86

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 182 39 7,016 7,054 7 3 2,677 2,679

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 27 0 4,975 4,975 - - - -

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 2 0 157 157 - - - -

23 81 Other Services 202 3,416 14,709 18,125 6 0 3,686 3,686

24 92 Public Administration 386 132,278 119,918 252,196 65 100 135,677 135,777

Column totals = 13,735 35,555,911 5,863,715 41.879 million 1,032 2,894,015

(7%)

38,984,665

(93%)

41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

* Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

** Beneficial disposal = H050+H061

*** Non-beneficial = H040+H071+H073+H075+H076+H077+H081+H082+H083+H101+H103+H111+H112+H121+H122+H123+H124+H129+H131+H132+H134+H135.
55

Exhibit 5C

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C (A+B)

Item

Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code

Beneficial 

disposal*

(tons/year)

Non-beneficial 

disposal**

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

1 G01 Dip, flush or spray rinsing 181 218,696 218,877

2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 70 256,099 256,169

3 G03 Plating & phosphating 0 565,432 565,432

4 G04 Etching < 1 656,479 656,479

5 G05 Metal forming & treatment < 1 196,975 196,976

6 G06 Painting & coating 452 7,118 7,571

7 G07 Product & by-product processing 130,096 9,202,390 9,332,487

8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 101,663 3,676,031 3,777,694

9 G09 Other production or service-related processes 65,677 3,124,046 3,189,723

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 298,141 17,903,268 18,201,408

10 G11 Discarding off-spec or out-of-date chemicals or products 1,034 33,227 34,261

11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection 0 2,389 2,389

12 G13 Cleaning-out process equipment 2,172 423,798 425,970

13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 54 5,945 5,999

14 G15 Process equipment change-out or discontinuation of use 12 513 524

15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement 460 351 811

16 G19 Other one-time or intermittent processes 2 57,846 57,848

Subtotal one-time or intermittent events or processes = 3,734 524,068 527,802

17 G21 Air pollution control devices 1 2,705,462 2,705,462

18 G22 Lab analytical wastes 6,027 3,956 9,983

19 G23 Wasetewater treatment 18,430 3,377,729 3,396,159

20 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery 307,916 2,821,083 3,128,998

21 G25 Hazardous waste management 78,043 2,087,197 2,165,240

22 G26 Leachate collection 0 514,715 514,715

23 G27 Haz residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 0 6,317 6,317

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 410,417 11,516,459 11,926,875

24 G31 Accidental contamination of products, materials, containers < 1 3,815 3,815

25 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine) 13 2,384 2,397

26 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 0 1,446 1,446

27 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination 0 96 96

Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 13 7,741 7,754

28 G41 Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA 2 43,251 43,253

29 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA 0 4,130,721 4,130,721

30 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA 0 124,202 124,202

31 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 0 146,941 146,941
56

Exhibit 5C

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C (A+B)

Item

Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code

Beneficial 

disposal*

(tons/year)

Non-beneficial 

disposal**

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

32 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup 0 3 3

33 G49 Other remediation < 1 236,548 236,548

Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 3 4,681,666 4,681,669

34 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite 98,216 99,833 198,048

35 G63 to 

G75

Imported from a foreign country 11,140 1,215 12,355

Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 109,356 101,047 210,403

36 G?? Source code not provided (Form GM) 0 0 0

37 G?? Source code not available (Form WR) 2,072,352 4,250,416 6,322,769 (15.1%)

Column totals = 2,894,015

(7%)

38,984,665

(93%)

41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm 

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + 

H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135
57

Exhibit 5D

Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C (A+B)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

Beneficial 

disposal*

(tons/year)

Non-beneficial 

disposal**

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 2,122 10,967 13,088

2 W002 Contaminated debris 4,416 257,213 261,630

3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 317 1,541 1,858

4 W301 Contaminated soil 1,144 441,580 442,723

5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 69 19,370 19,439

6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon 3,152 27,452 30,604

7 W320 Electrical devices 92 1,123 1,215

8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds 1 39,341 39,342

9 W801 Compressed gases 6,610 4,368 10,978

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 17,922 802,954 820,875

10 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 7,125 12,599,999 12,607,124

11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 1,545 1,276,756 1,278,301

12 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 2,671 4,815,506 4,818,176

13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 133 83,839 83,971

14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 1,748 1,119,752 1,121,500

15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 28,559 5,618,002 5,646,561

16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 25 14 38

17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 3,186 860,770 863,956

Subtotal inorganic liquids = 44,990 26,374,638 26,419,628

18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 35,775 61,143 96,918

19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 15,349 40,146 55,494

20 W203 Concentrated non-halogenated solvent 294,378 104,452 398,830

21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non-halo solvent mixture 530,935 128,223 659,158

22 W205 Oil-water emulsion/mixture 11,659 44,402 56,061

23 W206 Waste oil 27,883 6,758 34,641

24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 95,431 13,466 108,897

25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives 16,323 42,627 58,950

26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates 127,682 6,014 133,696

27 W219 Other organic liquid 1,011,857 7,647,476 8,659,334

Subtotal organic liquids = 2,167,273 8,094,707 10,261,980

28 W303 Ash 3 190,006 190,008

29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 20 559,547 559,567

30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 183 20,459 20,641

31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems < 1 25,665 25,665

32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 147 25,902 26,049
58

Exhibit 5D

Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C (A+B)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

Beneficial 

disposal*

(tons/year)

Non-beneficial 

disposal**

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

33 W319 Other inorganic solids 2,686 503,996 506,682

Subtotal inorganic solids = 3,037 1,325,575 1,328,612

34 W401 Pesticide solids 103 5,815 5,918

35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 7,148 30,235 37,383

36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 6 22,806 22,812

37 W409 Other organic solids 56,208 101,662 157,870

Subtotal organic solids = 63,465 160,518 223,983

38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 50 179,873 179,923

39 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 86 3,005 3,092

40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 1,285 91,342 92,627

41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 37 330,994 331,031

42 W506 Cyanide-bearing sludges 16 4,659 4,676

43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 242 20,013 20,256

Subtotal inorganic sludges = 1,716 629,887 631,603

44 W603 Oily sludge 25,553 67,481 93,034

45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 11,324 1,482 12,806

46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge 37,624 2,803 40,427

47 W609 Other organic sludge 56,586 155,711 212,297

Subtotal organic sludges = 131,087 227,476 358,563

48 W??? Physical form code not provided 464,525 1,368,911 1,833,436 (4.4%)

Totals = 2,894,015

(7%)

38,984,665

(93%)

41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + 

H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135
59

Exhibit 5E

Waste Codes Assigned to Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C (A+B)

Item RCRA Waste Code

Beneficial disposal*

(tons/year)

Non-beneficial 

disposal**

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

1 Dxxx 1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes 

only

1,189,414 21,595,447 22,784,861 54%

2 Fxxx 1 or more non-specific industrial source waste

codes only

118,323 1,550,660 1,668,983 4%

3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes 

only

75,372 2,720,143 2,795,515 7%

4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or offspec commercial chemical products, container 

residues & spill residues thereof

85 153,084 153,169 <1%

5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical 

products, manufacturing intermediates, or offspec commercial chemical products

6,435 250,852 257,287 <1%

6 Mixed Assigned with multiple waste codes from 2 or 

more categories above

1,234,460 12,288,403 13,522,863 32%

7 ???? Waste code not provided 269,927 426,076 696,003 2%

Column totals = 2,894,015 38,984,665 41.879 million 100%

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + 

H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135
60

5B. Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently Disposed

This section presents the data screening (i.e., data selection) criteria applied in this RIA to the baseline disposal data displayed in 

Exhibits 5A to 5E above. As described below, this screening process involves two steps:

· Step1: Primary screening criteria to identify disposed wastes containing constituents of potential commodity value

· Step 2: Secondary screening criteria to identify commodity-containing wastes of sufficient physical quality for recovery

The purpose of these complementary screening steps is to identify the baseline disposal quantities (i.e., 2005 tons per year) that may be 

physically and chemically sufficient for potential future switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule exclusions. The baseline 

disposal types and associated annual quantities which remain after applying this two-step data screening process, are applied in this 

RIA as inputs to the spreadsheet computations for the disposal switchover breakeven test described in Chapter 8 of this RIA. The 

breakeven test is executed in this RIA on a micro (i.e., waste stream-by-waste stream) basis, not on a facility-by-facility basis or 

industry-by-industry basis. The breakeven test represents a micro-economic financial test to determine if facilities may change their 

management practices for individual waste streams to obtain the potential economic benefits of the DSW final rule.

Before presenting the two-step screening process and results below, there are two possible observations about the baseline 

disposal data presented in Exhibits 5C, 5D and 5E above. Taken together these two observations suggest that 76% to 97% of the 

baseline disposal hazardous wastes should not be expected, a prior, to yield break-even switchover recycling under the DSW final rule. 

This percentage range represents a lower-bound and upper-bound range produced by alternatively assuming complete overlap and 

assuming no overlap between the two observations, respectively.

· Disposal Data Observation 1: Low quality physical form of baseline disposal hazardous wastes (re: Exhibit 5D):

Based on the physical form data presented in Exhibit 5D, a relatively large 76% segment of the 41.879 million tons of baseline 

disposal appears to be low quality in terms of potential commodity recovery (recycling) efficiency and market value.

Exhibit 5D row 10 Disposal of W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 12.61 million tons 30.1%

Exhibit 5D row 12 Disposal of W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 4.82 million tons 11.5%

Exhibit 5D row 15 Disposal of W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters n.e.c. 5.65 million tons 13.5%

Exhibit 5D row 27 Disposal of W219 Other organic liquid n.e.c. 8.66 million tons 20.7%

Subtotal = 31.74 million tons 76%

· Disposal Data Observation 2: Missing codes from baseline disposal hazardous wastes (re: Exhibits 5C, 5D, 5E):

Exhibits 5C, 5D and 5E reveal that a relatively large 15% to 21% segment of baseline disposal tonnage does not have associated 

Gxx source codes, Wxxx physical form codes, or Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx waste codes:

Exhibit 5C row 37 Disposal data without Gxx source codes 6.32 million tons 15.1%

Exhibit 5D row 48 Disposal data without Wxxx physical form codes 1.83 million tons 4.4%

Exhibit 5E row 7 Disposal data without Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx 0.70 million tons 1.7%

Subtotal = 6.32 to 8.85 million tons (15% to 21%)
61

Consequently, 15% to 21% of baseline disposal cannot be evaluated in this RIA for break-even switchover, because the 

switchover methodology is based on using these codes as primary screening selection criteria for assigning to recycling commodity

groupings as described below in Exhibit 5F.

· Step 1: Primary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Commodity Values)

The first data screening step is structured according to each of the three RCRA baseline recycling methods (i.e., metals recovery, 

solvent recovery, and other recovery). Each materials recovery method is assigned as a “commodity group” according to the 

respective types of materials involved in each of these three recovery methods. Exhibit 5F below presents the primary data screening 

criteria applied in this RIA according to these three commodity groups. The screening criteria consist of three sequentially applied “if 

then” data selection criteria involving 67 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste codes:

· Wxxx: 16 BR physical/chemical form codes

· Gxx: 4 BR industrial process/activity source codes

· Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx: 47 RCRA regulatory waste codes

OSW identified and assigned the screening codes in each criteria based on determining whether each of these codes pertained to 

metals, solvents, or to other types of materials contained in the wastes which might be amenable for recovery in the three commodity

groups.

The disposed quantities (i.e., 2005 tons) presented in Exhibits 5A to 5E above will not match the disposed quantities presented 

in Exhibits 5F to 5J below (which are applied in the breakeven test of this RIA). Exhibits 5A to 5E (except for column B of Exhibit 

5B as noted previously) present the national baseline disposal picture based on the 2005 National Biennial Report (NBR) reporting 

logic. Given the numbers in Exhibits 5A to 5E are intended to add-up to the totals presented in the 2005 RCRA National Biennial 

Report, a compatible Biennial Report database query logic was used to complete those exhibits. However, the resultant disposed 

quantities presented in Exhibits 5A to 5E are higher than those used in the breakeven test as presented in Exhibits 5F to 5J. The 

difference in disposed quantities between these two sets of exhibits are due to the following technical reasons pertaining to (a) how the 

Biennial Report data reporting forms are structured/designed and (b) there are different BR data reporting forms which separately

target LQGs (i.e., “Form GM”) and TSDFs (i.e., “Form WR”):

1. The onsite quantity disposed totals in Exhibit 5A (column G) from the 2005 NBR are sums of the numbers reported in Biennial 

Report Form GM, Sec. 1, F. Quantity Generated in 2005 (see attached 2005 BR Form GM). The on-site quantity disposed 

totals used in the analysis are those reported in Form GM, Sec. 2, On-site Process System 1 and On-site Process System 2. 

These numbers sometimes do not match because either there is a reporting/data entry error, not all of the quantity generated is 

recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or not all of the quantity generated in 2005 was recovered in 2005.
62

2. Source code G61 (received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite) waste is excluded in the breakeven test of this 

RIA given the waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 5C, Item 34) by the generator.

3. The off-site management totals in Exhibit 5A (column H) from the 2005 NBR are based on waste receipts (i.e., wastes reported 

received from off site for management on Form WR). The off-site management totals used in the cost analysis are based on 

reported shipments on Form GM. The quantities reported shipped for off-site recovery in Form GM, Sec. 3, Site 1, Site 2, and 

Site 3 are used.

4. Step 2 of this data screening methodology Exhibit 5F and Exhibit 5G present screening selection criteria that eliminate much of 

the disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 5A through 5F.

Exhibit 5F

Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data

for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN” criteria*)

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes**

BR Industrial Process/ 

Activity

Generation Source Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes**

Commodity Group #1: For Possible Metal Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=10)

· W107 wastes containing cyanides

· W117 waste liquid mercury

· W303 ash

· W304 slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues

· W307 metal scale, filings & scrap (metal drums)

· W312 cyanide or metal cyanide solids, chemicals

· W316 metal salts or chemicals w/out cyanides

· W501 lime and/or metal hydroxide sludges/solids

· W505 metal bearing sludges w/out cyanide

· W506 cyanide-bearing sludges (non cont.soils)

For wastes with no reported 

form codes include source 

codes: (n=2)

· G03 plating & 

phosphating

· G04 etching

For wastes with no reported form codes and no reporting source codes G03 

or G04 include RCRA waste codes: (n=38)

· D005 barium

· D006 cadmium

· D007 chromium

· D008 lead

· D009 mercury

· D010 selenium

· D011 silver

· F006, F007, F008, F009 metal electroplating

· F010, F011, F012 metal heat treating

· F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum

· F035 inorganic wood preservative waste (arsenic or chromium)

· K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008 inorganic pigment mfg 

sludge & residues (listed for chromium)

· K064, K065, K066, K069, K086, K100 lead- or chromium-bearing

· K061 iron & steel mfg emission dust

· K071, K073, K106, K176, K177, K178 inorganic chemical mfg

· K171, K172 petroleum refining spent catalysts
63

Exhibit 5F

Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data

for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN” criteria*)

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes**

BR Industrial Process/ 

Activity

Generation Source Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes**

Commodity Group #2: For Possible Solvent Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=5)

· W202 concentrated halogenated organic liquids

· W203 concentrated non-halogenated organic liquids

· W204 concentrated halo/non-halogenated solvents

· W209 paint, ink, lacquer or varnish

· W211 paint thinner or petroleum distillates

For wastes with no reported 

form codes include source 

codes: (n=2)

· G01 dip, flush or spray 

rinsing (using solvents)

· G06 painting & coating

For wastes with no reported form codes and no reporting G01 or G06 

include RCRA waste codes: (n=8)

· F001, F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

· F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

· K086 solvent washes of ink equipment

Commodity Group #3: For Possible Other Recovery (Carbon Regeneration and Sodium Fluoride)*

Include form codes: (n=1)

· W310 filters, solid adsorbents, ion exchange resins 

and spent carbon (this RIA evaluates carbon only)

· Note: not included are spent acids >5% (W103)***

---

· For wastes with no reported form codes include RCRA waste codes 

and form code W312 reported with K088 waste code move from 

Category 1 to Category 3: (n=1)

· K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

Total codes A =16 Total codes B =4 Total codes C =47

Explanatory Notes: 

· * IF THEN = The three criteria in this exhibit represent sequential database query criteria within each waste type row. First the waste code data were pulled 

(criterion A), and for remaining data with missing waste codes, the regulatory waste code data were pulled (criterion B), then for remaining data with missing waste

codes, the source code data were pulled (criterion C).

· **There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx codes, 120 Kxxx, codes, 205 Pxxx codes, and , 612 Uxxxx codes defined for data 

reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for complete lists see pp. 49 to 54 of the 2005 BR instructions book at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf

· *** Upon review of W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste is 

not suitable for switchover to off-site other recovery. Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on-site wastewater treatment systems followed 

by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep-well injection. These disposal methods are cheap compared to offsite recovery. 

It will not be more economical to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. It is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually carry these 

records through the analysis. A small quantity (< 4,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062) was identified. The quantity is too small to carry forward through the 

analysis.
64

· Step 2: Secondary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Physical Quality)

Exhibit 5G below presents the secondary screening criteria applied to baseline disposal wastes The purpose of these secondary

screening criteria are to introduce a consideration of the anticipated physical quality of baseline disposed waste streams, prior to 

evaluating them in the disposal-switchover-to-recycling breakeven test of this RIA. The secondary screening criteria consist of six 

elements as follows:

(1) Remove disposed waste records that were residuals from hazardous waste management processes. Residuals generated by

either (a) current materials recovery operations (H010, H020, H039), (b) energy/fuel recovery operations (H050, H061), or (c) 

thermal destructive treatment processes (H040), are assumed not to have a high content of recoverable material and are 

assumed will continue to be disposed. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records with source code G25. 

Disposed wastes with RCRA waste codes F006 and F007 were retained because these potentially recoverable wastes were 

often reported using this source code because they are derived from wastewater treatment processes.

(2) Remove disposed waste records that were wastes generated from industrial processes that are not continuous (e.g., those 

generated from remediation or one-time industrial activities). The material values from these wastes are less likely to be 

recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled process environment (i.e., remediation wastes involve spills and 

releases to the environment). Given their one-time nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification 

process to the agency for an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for a one-time waste generation event. This 

corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records corresponding to three sets of non-continuous source codes: (a) spills 

and accidental releases G31, G32, G33, G39, (b) remediation of past contamination G41, G42, G43, G44, G45, G49, and (c) 

non-periodic activities G12, G15, G19.

(3) Remove disposed wastes with waste descriptions containing the word “debris” from the data set. The material values from 

these wastes are less likely to be recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled process environment. Given their 

one-time nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification process to the agency for an exclusion 

from the definition of solid waste for a one-time waste generation event.

(4) Remove wastes with waste descriptions indicating they are “rinsewaters”or “groundwaters” to ensure the physical quality of 

the waste (i.e., the minimal recoverable material concentration) is technically sufficient for recovery. These dilute aqueousbased wastes typically do not contain recoverable fractions of valuable materials. This screening criteria was only applied to 

waste streams with no reported form code. Normally wastes like these would have a reported form code of W101 very dilute 

aqueous waste containing more than 99% water and W105 acidic aqueous wastes less than 5% acid.

(5) Remove some miscellaneous disposed wastes:

a. Onsite Commodity Group #2 baseline disposal quantities were primarily disposed by non-beneficial incineration 

(H040), or by beneficial energy recovery (H050), or beneficial fuel blending (H061). For the purposes of this RIA, it is 

assumed that facilities which both generate and dispose wastes on site via beneficial energy or fuel recovery (i.e., H050 

or H061) will not change to a materials recovery process under the DSW final rule exclusions. All these processes 
65

require relatively large onsite capital investments and air pollution control permitting costs, which make it less likely

that onsite H040, H050 or H061 disposed wastes will switchover to materials recovery under the DSW exclusions. 

This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records for onsite waste generation GM Form Section 2 H040, 

H050 and H061. However, this RIA subjects the disposal data records corresponding to offsite disposal Form GM 

involving these three waste codes (i.e., H040, H050, H061) to the breakeven test for switchover to recovery/recycling.

b. All records with form code W310 not containing the word “carbon” or “charcoal” in the waste description were deleted 

from the list of disposed spent carbon wastes. This is necessary because the definition of the W310 physical/chemical 

form code allows reporting together in this single code, four different types of materials: (1) filters, (2) solid adsorbents, 

(3) ion exchange resins, and (4) spent carbons. Because of lack of characterizing data on the other three waste types, 

only spent carbon from these four waste types is evaluated in this RIA for potential switchover to recovery.

(6) Because of the fact there are tens of thousands of individual waste streams in the Biennial Report database for any given data 

year, it is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually examine each narrative comment for baseline 

disposed wastes containing these "other" code sub-categories to determine whether they should be included in the breakeven 

test of this RIA. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records for H129 "other treatment". However, this RIA 

does include the H039 "other recovery or reclamation" catch-all sub-category in the baseline recycling data records analyzed 

elsewhere in this RIA for potential DSW exclusion de-regulatory cost savings. The “other” form codes already were removed 

by their exclusion from the “primary” screening selection criteria.

Exhibit 5G

Summary of Outcome of Primary & Secondary Screening Criteria

Applied to Baseline Disposal Wastes to be Evaluated for Switchover to Recycling

Secondary Selection Criteria

Remaining & Removed 

Disposal Quantities

(2005 tons per year)

Total Remaining Baseline

Disposal Quantity

(2005 tons per year)

A. Primary Selection Criteria:

Commodity Group 1

Commodity Group 2

Commodity Group 3

Total Baseline Disposed Quantity Remaining

1,687,044

1,247,510

161,961

3,096,515 3,096,515

B. Secondary Screening Criteria:

1. Remove Source Code G25 -624,668 2,471,847

2. Remove Wastes Generated by Non-Continuous Processes -73,671 2,398,176

3. Remove Debris-Wastes -23,225 2,374,951

4. Remove Rinsewaters and Groundwaters -8,913 2,366,038

5. Remove Other Waste Specific Quantity -235,443 2,130,595

6. Remove “Other Treatment” Quantity -45,953 2.085 million
66

5C. Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that May Switchover to Recycling

Exhibits 5H through 5J below present the resultant types and quantities (i.e., tons per year in relation to the baseline data year 2005 

applied in this RIA) of the baseline disposed hazardous waste data selected by the screening listed in Exhibits 5F and 5G above, which 

are applied in the new recycling “breakeven test” in this RIA (Chapter 8).

Exhibit 5H

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2005)

A B C D E F (D+E) G H I (G+H)

Item Disposal 2005 Count of Facilities Disposing 2005 Tons Disposed (management quantity)

Method 

Code

Disposal Description

Onsite Offsite

(Shipped)

Total 

Facilities

Onsite

(tons/year)

Offsite

(tons/year)

Total

(tons/year)

A. Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1 H050 Energy Recovery 3 945 946 1 155,333 155,334

2 H061 Fuel Blending 0 4,822 4,822 0 304,363 304,363

Subtotal beneficial disposal = --- --- --- 1 459,696 459,697

B. Non-Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=23):

1 H040 Incineration 21 2,319 2,330 2,497 120,724 123,222

2 H071 Chemical Reduction 9 103 110 7,108 6,103 13,210

3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 29 85 109 65,671 1,052 66,722

4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 0 17 17 0 320 320

5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 0 3 3 0 26 26

6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 11 188 197 1,023 11,864 12,886

7 H081 Biological Treatment 0 22 22 0 8,385 8,385

8 H082 Adsorption 0 8 8 0 21 21

9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 0 8 8 0 480 480

10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 28 53 77 1,257 1,350 2,607

11 H103 Absorption 0 9 9 0 140 140

12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 13 855 862 8,157 154,442 162,599

13 H112 Macro-Encapsulation 4 42 44 288 959 1,247

14 H121 Neutralization Only 5 56 58 13 300 314

15 H122 Evaporation 10 7 15 1,873 39 1,912

16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 5 6 9 24 487 511

17 H124 Phase Separation 3 16 17 5 160 165

18 H129 Other Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 4 124 125 40 31,323 31,363

20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 10 570 577 88,864 349,272 438,136

21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 0 38 38 0 4,032 4,032

22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 10 42 50 294,096 2,110 296,207
67

23 H141 Site receiving waste stored/bulked & transferred 

the waste with no treatment or recovery, fuel 

blending, or disposal at the receiving site.

62 3,728 3,765 87,821 372,600 460,421

24 H??? Disposal method not provided 0 1 1 0 18 18

Subtotal non-beneficial disposal = --- --- --- 558,737 1,066,207 1,624,944

Column totals = --- --- --- 558,738

(27%)

1,529,903

(73%)

2.085 million

(100%)

Note: * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more sequential treatment (e.g., chemical neutralization) methods prior to ultimate disposal (i.e., 

final disposition). Generators report the ultimate disposal of their hazardous wastes on Form GM, Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.
68

Exhibit 5I

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposed Hazardous Wastes for Recycling Breakeven Test

By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Disposed (2005)*

A B C (A+B) D E F (D+E)

Location of Generation Tons Per Year Location of Disposal Tons Per Year

Item

Economic Subsector

(2-digit NAICS Code)

Generation 

disposed 

onsite

Generation 

disposed offsite

(shipped)

Total generation 

disposed

Beneficial 

disposal*

Non-beneficial 

disposal** Total disposal

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0 3 3 0 0 0

2 21 Mining 0 4,522 4,522 11,475 761 12,236

3 22 Utilities 0 10,632 10,632 0 12 12

4 23 Construction 0 4,418 4,418 1 0 1

5 31 Manufacturing 0 5,263 5,263 0 0 0

6 32 Manufacturing 295,316 509,245 804,561 145,162 439,346 584,508

7 33 Manufacturing 177,120 770,386 947,506 0 179,650 179,650

8 42 Wholesale Trade 62 10,173 10,236 3,120 3,065 6,185

9 44 Retail Trade 0 94 94 0 0 0

10 45 Retail Trade 0 148 148 0 0 0

11 48 Transportation 100 23,583 23,683 246 295 541

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers Storage 4 10,768 10,772 4,686 1,336 6,022

13 51 Information 0 2,223 2,223 50 42 91

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 18 18 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 410 410 10 27 37

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 42 10,024 10,066 17 323 340

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 14 14 0 0 0

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 86,045 147,983 234,028 289,798 951,401 1,241,199

19 61 Educational Services 0 3,093 3,093 2 186 187

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 0 2,396 2,396 0 0 0

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 277 277 0 36 36

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 2,971 2,971 0 3 3

24 92 Public Administration 48 7,260 7,308 0 147 147

25 ?? NAICS code not reported 0 0 0 5,130 48,315 53,445

Column totals = 558,738

(27%)

1,525,904

(73%)

2,085 million

(100%)

459,697

(22%)

1,624,945

(78%)

2,085 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061; ** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + 

H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135 + H141
69

Exhibit 5J

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Industries Generating 

Disposed Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D

Item

Economic Subsector

(2-digit NAICS Code)

Commodity Group 

1 disposal

Commodity Group 

2 disposal

Commodity 

Group 3 disposal Total Disposal

1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0 3 0 3

2 21 Mining 110 2,774 1,637 4,522

3 22 Utilities 611 10,019 3 10,632

4 23 Construction 300 4,119 0 4,418

5 31 Manufacturing 1,890 3,366 7 5,263

6 32 Manufacturing 340,311 459,945 4,305 804,561

7 33 Manufacturing 854,418 92,834 254 947,506

8 42 Wholesale Trade 1,306 8,879 51 10,236

9 44 Retail Trade 0 94 0 94

10 45 Retail Trade 4 144 0 148

11 48 Transportation 20,338 3,326 19 23,683

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 564 10,117 91 10,772

13 51 Information 0 2,200 22 2,222

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 18 0 18

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 4 407 0 411

16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 396 9,656 14 10,066

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 14 0 14

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 171,796 62,032 200 234,028

19 61 Educational Services 112 2,975 6 3,093

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 20 2,376 0 2,396

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 1 276 0 277

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 86 2,885 0 2,971

24 92 Public Administration 3,754 3,470 84 7,308

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0

Column totals = 1,396,019

(67%)

681,928

(33%)

6,694

(<1%)

2.085 million

(100%)
70

Exhibit 5K

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total 

Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D (A+B+C)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

Commodity 

Group 1 disposal

Commodity 

Group 2 disposal

Commodity 

Group 3 disposal Total disposal

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 0 0 0 0

2 W002 Contaminated debris 0 0 0 0

3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 0 0 0 0

4 W301 Contaminated soil 0 0 0 0

5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 0 0 0 0

6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange 

resins, spent carbon

23 0 5,084 5,107

7 W320 Electrical devices 0 0 0 0

8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or 

other muds

0 0 0 0

9 W801 Compressed gases 0 0 0 0

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 23 0 5,084 5,107

10 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 0 0 0 0

11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 0 0 0 0

12 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 0 0 0 0

13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 89,361 0 1,610 10,214

14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 0 0 0 0

15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 0 0 0 0

16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 134 0 0 134

17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 0 0 0 0

Subtotal inorganic liquids = 89,495 0 1,610 91,105

18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 0 0 0 0

19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 0 12,394 0 12,394

20 W203 Concentrated non-halogenated solvent 0 259,999 0 259,999

21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non-halo 

solvent mixture

0 160,478 0 160,478

22 W205 Oil-water emulsion/mixture 0 0 0 0

23 W206 Waste oil 0 0 0 0

24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 0 79,946 0 79,946

25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic 

liquids/adhesives

0 0 0 0

26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates 0 36,663 0 36,663

27 W219 Other organic liquid 0 0 0 0

Subtotal organic liquids = 0 549,480 0 549,480

28 W303 Ash 61,400 0 0 61,400
71

Exhibit 5K

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total 

Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

A B C D (A+B+C)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code

Commodity 

Group 1 disposal

Commodity 

Group 2 disposal

Commodity 

Group 3 disposal Total disposal

29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal 

residues

320,361 0 0 320,361

30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including 

drums)

27,586 0 0 27,586

31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing 

solids, salts, chems

1,184 0 0 1,184

32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out 

cyanide

28,444 0 0 28,444

33 W319 Other inorganic solids 11,068 0 0 11,068

Subtotal inorganic solids = 450,043 0 0 450,043

34 W401 Pesticide solids 0 0 0 0

35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized 

organics

0 0 0 0

36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 0 0 0 0

37 W409 Other organic solids 0 0 0 0

Subtotal organic solids = 0 0 0 0

38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 124,120 0 0 124,120

39 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or 

air treatment 

0 0 0 0

40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air 

treatment

0 0 0 0

41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 412,633 0 0 412,633

42 W506 Cyanide-bearing sludges 161,257 0 0 161,257

43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 0 0 0 0

Subtotal inorganic sludges = 573,890 0 0 573,890

44 W603 Oily sludge 0 0 0 0

45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 0 0 0 0

46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge 0 0 0 0

47 W609 Other organic sludge 0 0 0 0

Subtotal organic sludges = 0 0 0 0

48 W??? Physical form code not provided 158,450 132,449 0 290,899

Totals = 1,396,019

(67%)

681,928

(33%)

6,694

(<1%)

2.085 million

(100%)

Notes: Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061; ** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + 

H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135 + H141.
72

Chapter 6

Estimate of Industry Baseline Cost for Complying with 14 RCRA Regulatory Requirements

6A. Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost Estimation Methodology

This chapter estimates the baseline (i.e., current) RCRA regulatory compliance burden --- consisting of administrative paperwork 

burden plus technical standards burden --- which may be eliminated with changes in RCRA regulatory status of the industrial materials 

and industrial facilities under each DSW final rule exclusion. As itemized in Exhibit 6A below, this RIA estimates 14 elements of 

baseline RCRA regulatory burden on the regulated community (i.e., industrial hazardous waste generators, waste transporters, and 

waste TSDFs) such as reporting to USEPA-authorized state governments, onsite recordkeeping, RCRA permitting of waste 

management units, waste transport manifesting, and meeting RCRA Subtitle C technical standards for design, construction, operation 

and closure of hazardous waste management units. These are the baseline compliance costs associated with managing a facility’s 

RCRA hazardous waste.

Exhibit 6A below presents the 14 baseline burden requirements according to RCRA-regulatory facility status as LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs, and TSDFs. The generator status of a facility may change when recycled wastes are no longer counted as hazardous waste 

under the DSW final rule, resulting in reduction or elimination of some RCRA baseline burden. The non-recycled quantity of 

hazardous waste a facility generates will determine its post-rule generator status and continued RCRA regulatory burden. Some 

facilities may generate no RCRA hazardous waste post-rule.

Also, if LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from LQG 

to SQG, or switch from LQG to CESQG, or switch from SQG to CESQG status, or may no longer be a RCRA hazardous waste 

generator under any of these three regulatory categories). CESQGs already have exclusions from many RCRA regulatory

requirements because of their small annual generation rate (i.e., less than 100 kilograms per month which is equivalent to 1.3 tons per 

year). SQGs and CESQGs have fewer RCRA regulatory administrative requirements than LQGs under 40 CFR Part 262 of RCRA

Subtitle C (i.e., relatively less baseline burden for RCRA personnel training, biennial reporting of hazardous waste generation and 

management activities, and preparation of contingency plans).
73

Exhibit 6A

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Compliance Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Facility Regulatory Classification

Item

RCRA Subtitle C 

Requirement LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF

Potential Change in Baesline 

Regulatory Burden Under the DSW 

Final Rule Exclusions

1 Obtain USEPA ID 

Number

Required Required Not required Required Assumed no cost savings because 

generators already have incurred costs 

for obtaining USEPA ID numbers (i.e., 

assumed “sunk cost”)

2 Personnel Training Required (40 CFR 

262.34)

Basic training required 

(40 CFR 262.34)

Not required Required Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

3 Recordkeeping Required for manifests, 

exception report, and 

biennial report.

Required for manifests 

and exception reports.

Not required Required for 

manifests, 

exception report, 

and biennial 

report

Cost savings incurred if recycled waste 

not defined as a hazardous waste or if 

generator becomes a SQG or CESQG 

with exclusion . 

4 Exception Report Required within 45 

days of hazardous 

waste being accepted 

by initial transporter

Required within 60 days 

of hazardous waste being 

accepted by initial 

transporter

Not Required See Generator 

Requirements

Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion. 

5 Biennial Reporting Required Not required Not required Required Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

6 Storage Requirements 

for Accumulated 

Hazardous Waste

Full compliance with 

management of 

containers or tanks

Basic requirements with 

technical standards for 

containers or tanks

None Full compliance 

with management 

of containers or 

tanks

Assumed no cost savings if generator 

status changes because facilities 

already have incurred costs (i.e., 

assumed “sunk cost”).

7 Part B Permit 

Renewal

None None None Required Costs savings incurred by permitted 

recycling facilities with exclusion. If 

they only recycle waste, they will incur 

facility-wide permit renewal savings. 

Otherwise, they only will incur savings 

associated with the permit renewal for 

the storage area associated with the 

recycling process.

8 Use Manifests Required Required, unless the 

waste is reclaimed under 

a contractual agreement

Not required See Generator 

Requirements

Cost savings incurred if recycled waste 

not defined as a hazardous waste or if 

generator becomes a SQG (with 

contract agreement) or CESQG with 

exclusion.
74

Exhibit 6A

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Compliance Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Facility Regulatory Classification

Item

RCRA Subtitle C 

Requirement LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF

Potential Change in Baesline 

Regulatory Burden Under the DSW 

Final Rule Exclusions

9 Preparadeness & 

prevention

Required Not Required Not Required Required Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

10 Contingency Plan Required Not required Not required Permit 

Requirement

Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

11 Emergency Plan Required Not required Not required Permit 

Requirement

Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

12 Facility closure Not required Not required Not Required Required Cost savings incurred

13 Post-closure care Not required Not required Not required Required Cost savings incurred

14 Accumulation Time 90 days “Speculative 

accumulation” 

provisions (40 CFR 

261.1(c)(8)) require 

that during a calendar 

year the amount of 

material that is 

recycled, or transferred 

to a different site for 

recycling, must equal at 

least 75% by weight or 

volume of the material 

at the beginning of the 

period.

180 days [or 270 days if 

transported more than 

200 miles]

“Speculative 

accumulation” 

provisions (40 CFR 

261.1(c)(8)) require that 

during a calendar year 

the amount of material 

that is recycled, or 

transferred to a different 

site for recycling, must 

equal at least 75% by 

weight or volume of that 

material at the beginning 

of the period.

None 90 days Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion. Cost savings for longer 

speculative accumulation time limits 

for recycled materials.

Column total requirements = 11 7 0 14
75

6B. Unit Costs for Estimating the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline

This section identifies the RCRA regulatory compliance baseline unit costs which form the basis for estimating baseline burden on 

affected industries. Unit cost data and baseline cost estimates are not presented in this RIA for baseline RCRA regulatory

requirements which (a) are “sunk costs” or (b) the baseline regulatory requirement is an infrequent event, for example:

· Obtaining an USEPA identification number (this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected industries)

· Preparing a RCRA manifest exception report (this is an unpredictable baseline regulatory event that does not frequently occur

and is not estimated in this RIA)

· Complying with storage requirements for accumulated hazardous waste (this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected industries)

Exhibit 6B below provides a summary of 14 RCRA baseline unit costs applied in this RIA to estimate the RCRA regulatory burden 

baseline cost to affected industries, which will be reduced under the DSW final rule amendments. Appendix B to this RIA provides 

background data references and computations for these baseline RCRA regulatory unit costs.

The primary sources of many of these baseline burden unit costs are the labor hour estimates contained in Information 

Collection Request (ICR) supporting statements for the RCRA hazardous waste program.16 An ICR describes reporting, record 

keeping, survey, or other information collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households, industry) by a Federal agency

such as the USEPA. The ICR provides an overview of the collection, and estimates the cost and time for the public to respond. ICR 

paperwork burden, referred to as RCRA administrative requirements in this chapter, are evaluated for compliance with 40 CFR 262 

generator standards such as manifest, pre-transport, recordkeeping, reporting, and differences in regulatory requirements for facilities 

that are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF regulatory status.

Exhibit 6B

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden Unit Costs

For RCRA Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected by the DSW Rule

A B C D E F G

Baseline RCRA hazardous waste (Subtitle C) 

regulatory requirements

Item Activity

40 CFR 

Citation

Type of 

applicable 

facility

Average unit cost & cost 

frequency per RCRA 

regulatory burden activity by 

type of facility which incurs 

this baseline regulatory cost

How this cost element is 

applied for cost savings 

estimation in this RIA

Unit cost supplemental 

information & references

1 EPA ID 262.12 LQGs, SQGs

Number 264.11 TSDRFs

--- --- Unit cost not estimated. 

Assumed no cost savings.

2 Personnel 262.34, LQGs, SQGs

training 264.16 & TSDRFs

· Haz Waste Handling:

o LQG: $2,726/year

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

Supporting Statement for 

ICR Number 820.10 

16 The RCRA hazardous waste program ICRs from which unit costs are applied in this RIA are ICR 2106.01, ICR 801, ICR 820, ICR 976, ICR 

1189.14, ICR 1572, and ICR 1573. USEPA ICRs are available from OMB’s Federal agency ICR inventory at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain
76

Exhibit 6B

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden Unit Costs

For RCRA Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected by the DSW Rule

A B C D E F G

Baseline RCRA hazardous waste (Subtitle C) 

regulatory requirements

Item Activity

40 CFR 

Citation

Type of 

applicable 

facility

Average unit cost & cost 

frequency per RCRA 

regulatory burden activity by 

type of facility which incurs 

this baseline regulatory cost

How this cost element is 

applied for cost savings 

estimation in this RIA

Unit cost supplemental 

information & references

265.16 o SQG: $847/year

o CESQG: $0/year

· Manifest Preparation:

o LQG/SQG: 

$335/year

o CESQG: $0/year

(i.e., LQGs which are 

estimated to become 

SQGs, and for SQGs 

which are estimated to 

become CESQGs)

Hazardous Waste 

Generator Standards, Jan 

2008

262.40 LQGs, SQGs

263.22 Transporters

3 Recordkeeping

264.74 & 

265.75

TSDRFs

· LQG: $702/year

· SQG: $468/year

· CESQG: $234/year

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

DPRA professional 

judgment

4 Manifest 

Exception 

Report

262.42 LQGs, SQGs. 

TSDRFs

--- --- Not estimated; 

unpredictable event does 

not frequently occur.

5 Biennial 262.41 LQGs

reporting 264.75 & 

265.75

TSDRFs

LQG: $364/year

SQG: $0/year (not required)

CESQG: $0/year (not required)

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

Supporting Statement for 

USEPA ICR Number 

976.13 "The 2007 

Hazardous Waste Report", 

Sept 18, 2007

6 Storage 

requirements 

for 

accumulated 

Has Waste

265 

Subparts I, 

J, W, AA, 

BB & CC

LQGs, SQGs, 

TSDRFs

--- --- Unit cost not estimated. 

Assumed there would be no 

incremental cost savings.

7 RCRA 

Subtitle C Part 

B permit 

renewal

270 TSDRFs · Metal Type Wastes: 

$2,445 to $4,890/year

· Solvent/Acid Type Wastes: 

$2,418 to $4,836/year

Annual for permitted 

recycling facilities

USEPA, Office of 

Regulatory Enforcement,

Estimating Costs for the 

Economic Benefits of 

RCRA Noncompliance, 

Sept 1994.

262 Sub B LQGs, SQGs

263 Sub B Transporters

8 Use manifest

264.71 & 

265.71

TSDRFs

· LQG: $48.30/manifest

· SQG & Nonhazardous 

Shipments: 

$47.63/manifest

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

Supporting Statement for 

ICR Number 801.15 

"Requirements for 

Generators, Transporters, 

& Waste Management 
77

Exhibit 6B

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden Unit Costs

For RCRA Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected by the DSW Rule

A B C D E F G

Baseline RCRA hazardous waste (Subtitle C) 

regulatory requirements

Item Activity

40 CFR 

Citation

Type of 

applicable 

facility

Average unit cost & cost 

frequency per RCRA 

regulatory burden activity by 

type of facility which incurs 

this baseline regulatory cost

How this cost element is 

applied for cost savings 

estimation in this RIA

Unit cost supplemental 

information & references

Facilities Under the RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Manifest 

System.", Dec 30, 2004

9 Preparedness 

& prevention

264/265 

Subpart C

TSDRFs See Items 2, 10, 11 Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

See Items 2, 10, 11

10 Contingency 

plan

264/265 

Subpart D

TSDRFs · LQG: $733/year

· SQG: $0/year

· CESQG: $0/year

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

Supporting Statement for 

ICR Number 820.10 

Hazardous Waste 

Generator Standards, Jan 

2008

11 Emergency 

plan

264/265 

Subpart D

TSDRFs · LQG: $482/year

· SQG: $94/year

· CESQG: $0/year

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

Supporting Statement for 

ICR Number 820.10 

Hazardous Waste 

Generator Standards, Jan 

2008

12 Closure 264/265 

Subpart G

TSDRFs · Metal Type Wastes: 

$3,340/year

· Solvent/Acid Type Wastes: 

$2,266/year 

Annual for facilities that 

switch from disposal to 

recycling

DPRA professional 

judgment using RACER* 

2005 unit costs inflated to 

2007 dollars using GDP 

implicit price deflator.

13 Post-closure 264/265 

Subpart G

TSDRFs see Item 12 Annual for facilities that 

switch from disposal to 

recycling

see Item 12

14 Accumulation 

Time

261.1(c)(8) 

& 262.34

LQGs, SQGs, 

TSDRFs

· Commercial Recovery

Acid Recovery: $171/ton

Solvent Recovery: $785/ton

Metal Recovery: $345/ton

· Waste Testing

$346/load

· Transport for Disposal

Acid Residual: $1,659/load

Solvent Residual: $2,444/load

Metal Residual: $2,144/load

Annual for facilities that 

change generator status

DPRA professional 

judgment using RACER*

2005 unit costs inflated to 

2007 dollars using GDP 

implicit price deflator.
78

Exhibit 6B

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden Unit Costs

For RCRA Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected by the DSW Rule

A B C D E F G

Baseline RCRA hazardous waste (Subtitle C) 

regulatory requirements

Item Activity

40 CFR 

Citation

Type of 

applicable 

facility

Average unit cost & cost 

frequency per RCRA 

regulatory burden activity by 

type of facility which incurs 

this baseline regulatory cost

How this cost element is 

applied for cost savings 

estimation in this RIA

Unit cost supplemental 

information & references

· Transport for Recovery

Acid Recovery: $2,135/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,169/load

Metal Recovery: $3,248/load

Average fixed** costs per-facility: · LQGs = $5,342/year

· SQGs = $1,744/year

· CESQGs = $234/year

Explanatory Notes:

* RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm

** In addition to “fixed costs” per facility, this exhibit also includes “variable costs” which are dependent upon different physical quantities (e.g., 

annual counts of waste shipment manifests, annual waste tonnage generated and shipped, annual counts of waste shipment truckloads) which vary from

year-to-year across affected industrial facilities and thus are not summarized in the bottom row of this exhibit.
79

6C. Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Paperwork Burden Baseline

Exhibit 6C

Estimate of Affected Industry Baseline Annual Costs for Complying with 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Requirements

Which Will be Eliminated Under the DSW Exclusions

Note: Cost estimates are based on annual hazardous waste tonnages of both baseline recycling + baseline disposal which may switchover to recycling

Item RCRA Requirement

Exclusion 1

Generator-controlled

Exclusion 2

Offsite transfers

Exclusion 3

Case-by-case

Combined Impact

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1 Obtain USEPA ID number Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0

2 RCRA Personnel Training $128,088 $3,227,580 $25,903 $3,381,571

3 Recordkeeping $17,089 $466,323 $3,455 $486,867

4 Manifest exception reporting Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0

5 Biennial Reporting $21,846 $456,209 $4,417 $482,472

6 Storage requirements for hazardous wastes Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0 Assumed $0

7 Part B permit renewal $0 $1,620,000 $0 $1,620,000

8 Use Manifests $42,760 $713,532 $8,647 $764,939

9 Preparedness & prevention Included in Items 2, 

10 & 11

Included in Items 2, 

10 & 11

Included in 

Items 2, 10 & 11

Included in Items 2, 10 

& 11

10 Contingency Plan $43,992 $186,965 $8,897 $239,854

11 Emergency Planning $24,480 $555,144 $4,951 $584,575

12 Facility closure $0 ($1,190,745) $0 ($1,190,745)

13 Facility post-closure Included in 

Item 12

Included in 

Item 12

Included in 

Item 12

Included in 

Item 12

14 Accumulation time

Note: the cost savings for 

this row item include 

(net-out) the incremental 

costs for row 10 in 

Exhibit 7C (i.e., 

recycling residuals 

management costs)

Transportation =

Loading =

Recycling =

Waste/Resid. Disposal =

Waste Characterization =

Row 14 subtotal =

$4,974,809

$0

$0

$1,239,189

$306,277

$6,520,875

$40,530,443

($70,345)

$24,557,143

$19,410,294

$6,754,191

$91,181,727

$1,006,062

$0

$0

$250,603

$62,060

$1,318,724

$46,511,314

($70,345)

$24,557,143

$20,900,086

$7122,528

$99,021,326

Column totals = $6,799,130 $97,216,735 $1,374,994 $106.4 million
80

Chapter 7

Estimate of Potential Industry Costs to Meet 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions

This chapter estimates the potential cost to industry for meet to 12 conditions associated with the three DSW final rule exclusions. 

Implementation of the DSW rule may cause facilities to incur costs for meeting these conditions under the DSW exclusions, which 

may affect facility onsite waste accumulation practices, waste shipping, site closure/post-closure, and waste treatment residual 

management operations. For example, notification to RCRA-authorized state governments (or USEPA regional offices) for excluded 

materials will be required, which represents an implementation cost for compliance with the de-regulatory exclusions under the DSW 

final rule.

In addition to new paperwork burden costs for meeting the conditions of each DSW exclusion, industry compliance with the 

conditions of each DSW exclusion may also result in secondary impacts such as:

· Generator status: The resulting changes in generator status from LQG to SQG, to CESQG, or to non-generator status, will allow 

longer accumulation times, resulting in larger truckloads for shipment. With larger truckloads minimum management charges 

(higher unit costs, $/ton) may be avoided. Longer accumulation times will result in few shipments and reduced total shipping 

costs.

· Residuals management:The DSW rule may cause residuals (e.g., ash, distillation bottoms) generated from the recycling

processes to be no longer regulated as “derived-from” RCRA hazardous wastes (RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(I)). Management 

of previously “listed” hazardous residuals may shift from RCRA Subtitle C regulated hazardous waste management to deregulated management, although RCRA “characteristic” hazardous waste residuals will continue to need to be managed as 

hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C of the RCRA regulations defines “characteristic” hazardous wastes according to four 

classifications: 261.21 ignitability, 261.22 corrosivity, 261.23 reactivity, and 261.24 toxicity).

Exhibit 7A below presents a summary of the 12 conditions for the three DSW final rule exclusions, and Exhibit 7B displays the 

average unit costs estimated in this RIA for each. Additional unit cost details are provided in Appendix C to this RIA. Exhibit 7C 

presents the estimated annual cost for all affected facilities to comply with these conditions.
81

Exhibit 7A

12 Conditions for the 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Recycling Exclusions

Conditions

Exclusion 1:

Generator 

Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance Potential Cost Impacts on Affected Industries

1 No speculative 

accumulation

Yes Yes N/A “Speculative accumulation” provisions (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) 

require that during a calendar year (beginning January 1) the amount of 

material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, 

must equal at least 75% by weight or volume of the amount of that 

material at the beginning of the period. Impact not estimated in this 

RIA.

2 Generator notifies 

USEPA initially & 

every 2-years

Yes Yes N/A Costs were estimated for generators to complete a notification of RCRA 

exclusion for their recycled wastes every 2-years.

3 Notification signed by 

corporate official

Yes Yes N/A Additional costs will be incurred in the notification process to brief and 

obtain the signature of a corporate official. 

4 Generator submits 

petition to USEPA to 

demonstrate that 

materials are not solid 

wastes

N/A N/A Yes Costs will be incurred to conduct waste characterization (totals and 

TCLP) to demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other material values 

warranting recovery.

5 Maintain records of all 

offsite shipments for 

recycling

No (onsite)

Yes (if 

involving 

offsite 

company 

affiliate, or 

tolling 

agreement)

Yes N/A Costs will be incurred by generator to maintain records of materials 

shipments to offsite recycling.

6 Confirmation of 

shipment receipt

Yes Yes N/A Costs will be incurred by (a) offsite recycler to confirm to generator 

receipt of shipment, and (b) generator to maintain record of 

confirmation receipts.

7 Recycler has liability 

insurance for accidents

No Yes N/A This RIA assumes no additional costs will be incurred because assumes 

all affected facilities currently have liability insurance for accidents as 

part of standard industry practice.

8 Recycler has financial 

assurance for closure

No Yes N/A Costs incurred by recycler for obtaining financial assurance for 

closure/post closure of secondary materials storage containers.

9 Materials must be 

contained

Yes Yes Yes This RIA assumes no additional costs because assumes all affected 

facilities will ensure containment to avoid CERCLA liability and 

RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills.

10 Residuals derived from No Yes N/A Assume all affected entities are currently treating residuals as listed 
82

Exhibit 7A

12 Conditions for the 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Recycling Exclusions

Conditions

Exclusion 1:

Generator 

Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance Potential Cost Impacts on Affected Industries

recycling managed in 

environmentallyprotective manner

waste, so cost savings will be incurred because “listed” waste 

definitions will no longer be attached to residuals.

11 Generator exercises 

due diligence 

reasonable efforts to 

ensure offsite recycling 

is legitimate

No Yes N/A Generator incurs cost for conducting due diligence on offsite recycler.

12 Export of materials for 

recycling requires 

notice & consent and 

filing of an annual 

report documenting the 

actual number of 

shipments and quantity 

of material exported

N/A Yes N/A Costs incurred by generator to notify foreign recycling facility of the 

requirements of the DSW exclusions and file an annual report on 

materials exported. This RIA does not estimate the annual fraction 

(percentage) of affected hazardous secondary materials which may be 

exported for recycling. However, this is a baseline RCRA Subtitle C 

requirement (40 CFR 262.53; 40 CFR 262.56), so no incremental cost 

impact.

Count of total conditions* = 6 11 2

Explanatory Notes:

· N/A = Not applicable.

· * Total counts of conditions in this Exhibit (a) do not include the four “legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non-mandatory factors) 

which are common to all three recycling exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) do not distinguish and include the five 

sub-elements of item 11 due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c) do not distinguish and include the nine criteria for making a non-waste determination under 

Exclusion 3.. This more detailed sub-itemization of requirements exceeds the impact estimation level-of-detail of this RIA Addition of these 18 omitted subitems would increase the total count of conditions to 10 for Exclusion 1, to 20 for Exclusion 2, and to 15 for Exclusion 3.
83

Exhibit 7B

Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Industry Compliance with 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions

Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computations Presented in Appendix C

Item

DSW 

Exclusion 

Condition

40 CFR 

Equivalence

Type of 

Industrial 

Facility

Average Unit Cost Per 

Condition

Frequency of 

Compliance with 

Condition

Description as Applied in this RIA

(note: see the 2008 DSW final rule for exact

description)

1 No speculative 

accumulation)

261.1(c)(8) 

& 262.34

LQGs, SQGs Generators may pay surcharges 

to TSDRFs for more frequent 

pick-up of less than full loads:

· Commercial Recovery

Acid Recovery: $171/ton

Solvent Recovery: $785/ton

Metal Recovery: $345/ton

· Waste Testing $346/load

· Transport for Disposal

Acid Residual: $1,659/load

Solvent Residual: $2,444/load

Metal Residual: $2,144/load

· Transport for Recovery

Acid Recovery: $2,135/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,169/load

Metal Recovery: $3,248/load

Varies by recycled 

tons, recycling type 

and changes in 

generator status

· “Speculative accumulation” provisions 

(40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during 

a calendar year (beginning Jan 1) the 

amount of material that is recycled, or 

transferred to a different site for 

recycling, must equal at least 75% by 

weight or volume, of material at the 

beginning of the period.

· Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG under the 

DSW exclusions.

· DPRA professional judgment using 

RACER* 2005 unit costs inflated to 

2007 dollars using GDP implicit price 

deflator.

2 Generator 

notifies 

USEPA 

initially & 

every 2-years

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

· $122 per initial notification

· $122 per re-notification

· Average annualized basis 

= $61 per year (i.e., ($122 

every two-years) / (2 years 

re-notification period))

Initially plus every 2

years; this RIA 

calculates an 

average annualized 

cost to apply in the 

impact estimation 

spreadsheets.

DPRA profession judgment assuming 110 

minutes labor time per initial and per renotification consisting of 38 minutes project 

manager time + 64 minutes staff engineer 

time + 8 minutes clerical time.

3 Notification 

signed by 

corporate 

official

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

· $123 per initial 

certification

· $123 per re-certification

· Average annualized basis 

= $62 per year (i.e., ($123 

every 2 years) / (2 year renotification period))

Initially plus every 

two years; this RIA 

calculates an 

average annualized 

cost to apply in the 

impact estimation 

spreadsheets.

DPRA professional judgment; Additional 

costs will be incurred in the notification 

process to brief and obtain the signature of a 

corporate official.

4 Generator 

submits 

petition to 

USEPA to 

demonstrate 

that materials 

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

$11,415/variance Once Assume administrative burden cost to 

industry is identical to the USEPA 

Supporting Statement for ICR nr 1189.14 

Identification, Listing, & Rulemaking 

Petitions, Sept 13, 2004; To conduct waste 

characterization (totals and TCLP) to 
84

Exhibit 7B

Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Industry Compliance with 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions

Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computations Presented in Appendix C

Item

DSW 

Exclusion 

Condition

40 CFR 

Equivalence

Type of 

Industrial 

Facility

Average Unit Cost Per 

Condition

Frequency of 

Compliance with 

Condition

Description as Applied in this RIA

(note: see the 2008 DSW final rule for exact

description)

are not solid 

wastes

demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other 

material values warranting recycling.

5 Maintain 

records of offsite shipments 

for recycling 

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

· LQG: $702/year

· SQG: $468/year

· CESQG: $234/year

Annual for facilities 

that change 

generator status

DPRA professional judgment; Cost incurred 

by generator to maintain records of offsite 

recycling shipments. Estimated by generator 

status.

6 Confirmation 

of shipment 

receipt

TSDRFs See Item 6 Every shipment See Item 6

7 Recycler has 

liability 

insurance for 

accidents

New if not 

a permitted 

TSDRF;

Otherwise,

264.147 

for 

permitted 

TSDRF

TSDRFs $0 Annual Assumed no cost because affected facilities 

assumed to have liability insurance.

8 Recycler has 

financial 

assurance for 

closure

264/265 

Subpart H

TSDRFs $1,397 + 1.5% of Closure 

Costs

Annual for facilities 

that switch from 

disposal to recycling

USEPA-OSW-EMRAD Sept 2000 Unit Cost 

Compendium (UCC).** Costs incurred by 

recycler for obtaining financial assurance for 

closure/post closure of secondary materials 

storage tanks.

9 Materials must 

be contained

New LQGs, SQGs, 

TSDRFs

$0 Annual This RIA assumes no additional costs 

because assumes all affected facilities will 

ensure containment (a) to avoid CERCLA 

liability costs, and (b) to avoid RCRA 

corrective action for leaks/spills.

10 Residuals 

derived-from 

recycling 

managed in 

environmentall

y-protective 

manner

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

· Metals 

(stabilization/landfill): 

$223/hazardous ton; 

$2,004 min. charge per haz 

load; $37/nonhaz ton; 

$337 min. charge per 

nonhaz load;

· Solvents (fuel blending): 

$226/ton; $2,352 min. 

charge per load;

Annual · Cost savings are incurred because 

“listed” waste definitions will no longer 

be attached to residuals and 

accumulation times are longer and 

shipments are bigger with changes in 

generator status.

· Cost savings are for changes in 

generator status allowing longer storage 

times and larger shipments resulting in 

avoided minimum disposal charges.
85

Exhibit 7B

Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Industry Compliance with 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions

Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computations Presented in Appendix C

Item

DSW 

Exclusion 

Condition

40 CFR 

Equivalence

Type of 

Industrial 

Facility

Average Unit Cost Per 

Condition

Frequency of 

Compliance with 

Condition

Description as Applied in this RIA

(note: see the 2008 DSW final rule for exact

description)

· Acids (precipitation/

dewatering/ stabilization/

landfill): $378/ton; $3,722 

min. charge per load

· Residuals continue to be treated as listed 

wastes.

· The cost for this exclusion condition is 

not separately estimated in this chapter 

of the RIA because this condition is a 

variation on baseline RCRA 

requirements, and is therefore netted-out 

in the estimated baseline cost item 14 of 

Exhibit 6C that will be eliminated from 

the DSW exclusions..

11 Generator due 

diligence to 

ensure offsite 

recycling is 

legitimate

New LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

$1,761 per each generator 

facility per each “due 

diligence” event conducted by 

a generator on a recycler.

Annual Generator incurs cost to conduct “due 

diligence” on recycler, consisting of 

“reasonable efforts” to ensure recycling is 

legitimate.

12 Export for 

recycling 

requires notice 

& consent and 

filing annual 

reports 

documenting 

number of 

shipments and 

quantity of 

materials

exported

262 

Subpart E

LQGs, SQGs, 

CESQGs

$7 per shipment for notice & 

consent plus per facility costs 

for assembling and filing an 

annual report

Varies by count of 

annual export 

shipments

· Costs incurred by generator for 

notification of foreign recycling facility 

of the requirements for the 

exclusion/exemption.

· Costs incurred by generator for 

assembling and filing an annual report

· This RIA does not estimate the annual 

percentage of affected hazardous 

secondary materials which may be 

exported for recycling. However, this is 

a baseline RCRA Subtitle C requirement 

(40 CFR 262.53; 262.56), so no cost 

impact estimated in this RIA.

Explanatory Notes:

“Legitimate recycling” factors are not included as conditions in this Exhibit because the legitimacy factors are common to all three exclusions and are substantively 

the same as the current legitimacy policy.

* RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm

** UCC = OSW’s 30 Sept 2000 “Unit Cost Compendium” (121 pages) is available to the public as document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0429 at the 

Federal government docket website: http://www.regulations.gov.
86

Exhibit 7C

Summary of Industry Annual Costs to Meet the 12 Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from baseline recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycling

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item RCRA Requirement Exclusion 1 Exclusion 2 Exclusion 3

Combined 

Exclusions 1+2+3

1 No speculative accumulation $0 $0 N/A not applicable $0

2 Generator notifies USEPA initially & every 2-years $18,909 $367,787 N.A $386,696

3 Notification signed by corporate official $18,909 $367,787 N/A $386,696

4 Generator submits petition to USEPA to demonstrate 

materials are not solid wastes

N/A N/A $79,905 $79,905

5 Maintain records of all offsite shipments for recycling $17,089

(assume same as 

baseline cost in 

Exhibit 6C row 3)

$466,323

(assume same as 

baseline cost in 

Exhibit 6C row 3)

$3,455

(assume same as 

baseline cost in 

Exhibit 6C row 3)

$486,867

(assume same as 

baseline cost in 

Exhibit 6C row 3)

6 Confirmation of shipment receipt Assume included 

in Item 5

Assume included 

in Item 5

N/A Assume included in 

Item 5

7 Recycler has liability insurance for accidents N/A $0 N/A $0

8 Recycler has financial assurance for facility closure N/A $1,819,707 N/A $1,819,707

9 Materials must be contained $0 $0 $0 $0

10 Residuals derived from recycling managed in 

environmentally-protective manner

N/A Netted-out from 

baseline burden in 

Exhibit 6C item 

14; assume 

residuals managed 

as haz waste

N/A Netted-out from 

baseline burden in 

Exhibit 6C item 14; 

assume residuals 

managed as haz 

waste

11 Generator exercises due diligence reasonable efforts 

to ensure offsite recycling is legitimate

N/A $12,610,993 N/A $12,610,993

12 Export of materials for recycling requires notice & 

consent and filing of an annual report

N/A $0 N/A $0

Column totals = $37,818 $15,165,474 $79,905 $15.8 million

Total count* of requirements = 6 11 2

Explanatory Notes:

· $0 in this exhibit either designates (a) that this RIA assumes these cost elements will not change relative to baseline, or (b) that these cost elements 

are expected to be relatively small and not estimated in this RIA.

· * Total counts in this Exhibit (a) do not include the four “legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non-mandatory factors) which 

are common to all three recycling exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) do not distinguish and include the 

five sub-elements of item 11 due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c) do not distinguish and include the nine criteria for making a non-waste 

determination under Exclusion 3. This more detailed sub-itemization of requirements exceeds the impact estimation level-of-detail of this RIA 

Addition of these 18 omitted sub-items would increase the count of conditions to 10 for Exclusion 1, 20 for Exclusion 2, and 15 for Exclusion 3.
87

Chapter 8

Micro-Economic Breakeven Test

to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling

8A. Breakeven Test Methodology

Excluding metals, solvents, and other industrial “hazardous secondary materials” from RCRA regulation should make it more 

economical for generators and recycling facilities to recover the market-valued commodities from these materials, if the materials are 

recycled rather than disposed. This chapter presents estimates of the potential new future industrial recycling that may be induced by

the DSW exclusions. The induced new recycling estimates are based on applying a financial “breakeven test” to estimate the portion

of baseline hazardous wastes which might switchover from baseline disposal (either onsite or offsite disposal) to future offsite

recycling. This impact is relevant to both Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2, so this breakeven test is conducted simultaneously for both 

exclusions to eliminate double-counting and over-estimation of this potential switchover impact.

Note: This RIA does not include a breakeven test to estimate possible (a) switchover of baseline offsite recycling to 

onsite recycling, or (b) switchover of baseline disposal to onsite recycling, as a result of the DSW final rule. 

This RIA does not apply the breakeven test to estimate new onsite recycling for three reasons: (a) the broad 

array of 100s of different industries consisting of 1,000s of industrial facilities generating or managing 10,000s 

of industrial hazardous waste streams potentially affected by the DSW final rule prohibits a meaningful analysis 

in this RIA that would reflect the unique onsite plant and business factors required to formulate an accurate, 

nationwide estimate, and (b) some large industrial associations and large industrial companies representing a 

large fraction of the industries most likely affected by the DSW final rule commented to OSW that new 

investments in onsite recycling is an unlikely scenario for many diverse industries because of engineering, 

technical, financial, and business reasons.

17 On the other hand, OSW does anticipate that the DSW final rule 

17 Although OSW did not independently evaluate their claims, five public commentors on OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs challenged the reasonableness of 

assuming that hazardous waste generators may invest in onsite recycling. Four of the five commentors are industrial associations and companies which represent 

a large fraction of the industries which may be most affected by the DSW final rule: (a) American Chemical Council commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0093, (b) IPC 

Association of Connecting Electronics Industries commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0112, (c) International Metals Reclamation Company Inc commentor ID nr. 2002-

0031-0178, and d) PPG Industries Inc commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0203. They indicated that a baseline disposal switchover to future onsite recycling scenario 

is not reasonable because (a) facilities within a single NAICS code industry are unlikely to be able to recycle them at all if they cannot recycle them in already 

DSW-excluded closed loop processes, and because of the unavailability of (b) investment capital, (c) industrial facility space, (d) technical expertise, and (e) 

skilled labor business constraints for some individual industrials facilities, and because (e) it is more likely that a company in another industry will have the 

required economies-of-scale expertise and infrastructure to reclaim significant quantities of secondary materials from a different industry, for example, no 

chemical plant is likely to build a metal processing, beneficiation or smelting operation to address its secondary metal-bearing material flows (comments are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov according to their commentor ID numbers for docket nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031).
88

may induce future switchover of hazardous secondary materials from offsite disposal and offsite recycling, to 

onsite recycling in some industries, because such switchovers have been reported in recent technical literature in 

absence of the DSW final rule.18 Consequently, this limitation in the methodology of this RIA probably results 

in a lower new recycling impact estimate in this chapter.

Compared to the potential future cost savings estimated in this RIA for exclusion of hazardous wastes currently being recycled, this 

switchover impact represents in this RIA, a relatively less certain, hypothetical future scenario. It is important to emphasize that this 

disposal switchover to recycling scenario does not represent a “prediction” or “forecast” in this RIA, but represents a “futures analysis” 

method often used by USEPA:19

“Scenarios are not predictions. They are stories of how the future might unfold — plausible stories that reflect information 

about trends and potential future developments. [Scenarios may be] designed to span a range of potential future 

conditions. The actual future is not likely to match any one of [alternative] depictions, but it will probably fall somewhere 

within the range of possibilities that [scenarios] explore.”

The underlying rationale for this disposal switchover scenario is that excluding metal-, solvent-, and other chemical-bearing wastes 

that are recycled, is expected to make it more economical for waste generators and for waste recycling facilities to recover valuable 

chemical constituents from these wastes. Therefore, induced new recycling impacts may result in additional savings to generators 

from at least three sources:

1. Relaxed waste accumulation time limits.

2. De-regulation of waste management residuals (e.g. ash, sludges, leachates) from recycled materials; i.e., if wastes are no 

longer considered a listed hazardous waste, the residuals generated by the waste recycling processes may no longer be 

regulated as “hazardous waste” under the RCRA "Derived-from Rule" (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). Therefore, the management 

of these residuals might shift from RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) to Subtitle D (nonhazardous waste) disposal if the 

residuals do not test characteristically hazardous (40 CFR 261 Subpart C).

3. Reduction and elimination of baseline costs for RCRA regulatory paperwork burden to affected entities (e.g., for 

manifesting, for maintaining RCRA waste management permits).

However, possibly offsetting some fractions of these potential RCRA regulatory cost savings, are the incremental costs to affected 

18 For example, a manufacturer of optical photoconductors in Chesapeake VA reportedly in the late 1990s shifted its offsite disposal (at offsite cement kilns for 

energy recovery incineration destruction) of spent tetrahydrofuran (THF) solvent – “highly unstable and explosive, forming peroxides in the presence of oxygen” 

--- to onsite recycling via a distillation-based technique that recovers the spent THF solvent for onsite reuse. Source: “Safe Recovery of a Hazardous Solvent”, 

Chemical Engineering, Oct 2001, p.95, http://www.che.com/articles/2001/EngKirk/EngKirk10012001_04.html.

19 Source: USEPA Office of Chief Financial Officer, http://www.epa.gov/cfo/futures/env_scen.htm.
89

facilities, associated with complying with the conditions of each DSW exclusion. Induced new recycling impacts are a combination 

of:

· RCRA regulatory paperwork burden costs savings to industry

· New costs to affected industrial facilities to implement (i.e., comply with) the 12 DSW exclusion conditions

· State government hazardous waste fee cost savings to industry

· Waste management costs (i.e., current waste disposal cost compared to new recycling cost) to industry waste generators

· Potential market value to recyclers of the recovered material commodities (if hypothetically recycled rather than disposed)

All of these elements are integrated in the micro-economic (i.e., facility- and waste-specific) financial breakeven test to determine

which facilities may be induced to switchover from baseline disposal to future recycling under the DSW exclusions.

8B. Key Assumptions Applied to Breakeven Test

· Recycled materials markets: The breakeven test does not include an evaluation of whether the US or global markets for 

recycled industrial secondary materials are large enough to absorb the potential increase in 

supply of recycled materials estimated in this RIA. Market conditions for recycled secondary

materials can vary considerably over time. Demand for recycled solvent, for example, is largely

dependent on the petroleum market: because virgin solvent is made from petroleum products, 

high petroleum prices encourage solvent recycling. Similarly, high metals prices obviously

favor the recycling of metal-bearing secondary materials.

· National average unit costs: The breakeven test assumes national average unit costs for industrial recycling 

equipment/operations, and does not account for variability in regional or local industrial and 

recycling market conditions.

· Quality & technical feasibility: The resultant baseline disposal wastes quantities selected according to the primary and secondary

screening criteria in Chapter 5 of this RIA, are assumed to have yielded a subset of disposed 

waste types/quantities which of sufficient physical quality and technical acceptability for 

potential materials recovery.

· Spreadsheet computation: This breakeven test is structured according to an “IF statement” cost comparison structure which 

compares baseline disposal costs for each waste category, to the hypothetical alternative cost for 

each facility to switch management of wastes to offsite commercial recycling under Exclusion 2. 

This cost comparison indicates that facilities may switch to new recycling if the hypothetical 

cost for recycling is less than the baseline disposal cost. The breakeven test was not applied to 

the case-by-case Exclusion 3, because this RIA assumes that baseline disposal switchover will 

not occur under Exclusion 3 which involves case-by-case variances.
90

8C. Summary of Breakeven Test Results

Exhibit 8A presents the micro-economic breakeven points as measured by the minimum annual tonnage of waste generated which may

be more economical to offsite commercial recycle (under Exclusion 2), compared to the cost of their baseline disposal. This 

breakeven test is not applied to the relative small number of average annual facilities and associated small waste quantities (tons per 

year) which may become excluded under Exclusion 3.

The breakeven test compared five categories of cost elements for baseline RCRA-regulated waste disposal, to hypothetical 

switchover to DSW-excluded recycling:

1. Potential cost savings from reduced RCRA regulatory burden associated with baseline disposal, as described in Chapter 6.

2. Potential offsetting costs to generators and recyclers for compliance with the 12 conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions as 

presented in Chapter 7.

3. Potential cost savings to generators from reduced hazardous waste taxes paid to state governments as presented in Chapter 10.

4. Potential market value of recoverable commodities contained in the baseline disposed wastes as presented in Appendix A.

5. Differences in baseline disposal costs as compared to offsite commercial recycling prices, as presented in Appendix D.
91

Exhibit 8A

Breakeven Point (tons/year) Where Offsite Recycling is Potentially More Economical than Baseline Disposal

A B C D E F

Item

Baseline disposal 

category Baseline disposal method

Assumed offsite 

recycling method

Micro-economic breakeven for 

switchover to offsite recycling

(tons/year)

Baseline disposal 

exceeding breakeven

(tons/year)

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A Metal Containing 

Liquids 

H071/H077

Chemical Precipitation

Offsite Ion Exchange 

Metals Recovery

Not economical at any reported 

quantity 

0

1B Metal Containing 

Solids 

H111 stabilization & H132 landfill Offsite Smelting ≤ 36.5 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule. 

28<x<36.5 tons/yr if change to 

lower generator status 

2,489

1C Metal Containing 

Sludges 

H111 stabilization & H132 landfill Offsite Smelting ≤ 30.9 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule 5,082

1D Emission Control Dust H111 stabilization & H132 landfill Offsite Smelting ≤ 22 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule 4.5

1E Catalyst H111 stabilization & H132 landfill Offsite Smelting ≥ 0 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule 10,947

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A Solvent Bearing 

Liquids 

H050 Energy Recovery Offsite Fractionation/

Distillation

≤ 15.2 tons/yr if change in 

generator status from LQG

2,682

2B Other Organic Liquids H050 Energy Recovery Offsite Fractionation/

Distillation

≤ 17.1 tons/yr if change in 

generator status from LQG

1,073

Commodity Group #3: Other Materials

3A Carbon H040 incineration Offsite Carbon 

Regeneration

≤ 32 tons if LQG pre-rule. 1,136

3B Sodium Fluoride H111 stabilization & H132 landfill Offsite Fluoride 

Recovery using 

Vortec technology

Not economical at any reported 

quantity (no commercial capacity

has been constructed)

0

Column total = 23,413
92

8D. Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposal for Recycling Switchover

Exhibit 8B below presents estimates of the potential market value embedded in the potentially recoverable materials for the 11 

disposed waste types potentially affected by the DSW final rule. In the exhibit, the potential market value is based on an assumption 

that 100% of the waste tonnage per year shifts from baseline disposal to future recycling as a result of the DSW rule, according to the 

assumed (a) concentration, (b) recovery yield, and (c) market price for each commodity recovered from the waste (see Appendix A for 

data references). However, for whom the cost of recycling becomes more favorable than their baseline cost for disposal, will be 

determined in the breakeven test presented elsewhere in this RIA.

The market value estimate incorporates a factor to account for possible quality losses in the purity or effectiveness of the 

recoverable product. The potential market value of recoverable constituents is estimated in this RIA using commercial market values. 

As listed below, there are at least three important factors which determine the potential market value of recoverable constituents, 

pertaining to the relative quality (i.e., physical/chemical composition) of the constituents in the secondary materials:

· Constituent type: The chemical type and concentration of constituents present in the secondary material impacts the cost 

for reclaimers to manage the waste, and the cost of reclamation is influenced by the market price the 

recyclers can obtain for the constituents they recover.

· Multiple constituents: The presence of multiple metals and/or other chemical constituents may impact both the marketability

and feasibility of reclamation. While the waste may contain multiple recoverable metals or other 

chemical constituents, reclaimers prefer that generators not co-mingle multiple metals, solvents, etc. in 

their secondary materials. For example, reclaimers prefer to accept wastes that have been segregated 

into a mono-metal or bi-metal sludge. (Source: Borst, Paul A., USEPA Office of Solid Waste, 

Economic, Methods and Risk Analysis Division, “Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from 

Electroplating Operations,” F006, 18th AESF/EPA Pollution Prevention and Control Conference, 

January 27-29, 1997, p. 179.). In certain instances, reclaimers face higher costs to handle impurities 

(i.e., metal/chemical constituents considered not to be of market value by the offsite reclaimer) in 

excess of a specified concentration. (Source: Lamancusa, James P., “Strategies at a Decorative 

Chromium Electroplating Facility: On-line vs. Off-line Recycling,” Plating and Surface Finishing, April 

1995, p.48.)

· Constituent quality: Generators may attempt to improve the quality of their secondary materials containing potential 

recoverable materials, in order to improve the productivity of reclamation, thereby allowing them to 

accumulate more cost-effective quantities for reclamation.
93

Exhibit 8B

Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposed Wastes Meeting the Recycling Switchover Breakeven Test

A B C D E F G (B x C x D x E) H (F x G)

Type of commodity 

in baseline disposed 

wastes

Baseline 

disposed Waste 

quantity meeting 

breakeven test 

(tons/year)

Typical 

recoverable 

commodity 

concentration in 

disposed waste

(% waste tonnage)

Percentage of 

baseline 

disposed wastes 

which may 

contain the 

commodity

Breakeven 

test spread 

sheet 

calibration 

factor

Commodity 

value @90% 

market price 

for virgin 

materials

($/ ton)

Quantity of 

commodities 

potentially 

recoverable from 

disposed waste 

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

market value of 

recoverable 

commodities @90% 

virgin material price

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A. Metal Containing 

Liquids (copper, 

lead, zinc)

0

0.025% 100% 0% $2,063 0 $0

1B. Metal Containing 

Solids (copper, lead, 

zinc)

2,489 4.152% 36% 100% $2,072 37.2 $77,086

1C. Metal Containing 

Sludges (chromium, 

copper, nickel, zinc)

5,082 1.004% 7% 100% $9,413 3.6 $33,619

1D. Emission 

Control Dust (zinc)

4.5 2.451% 62% 100% $1,908 0.07 $130

1E. Catalyst 

(molybdenum 

disulfide)

10,947 5% 90% 16.7% $43,390 82.3 $3,569,552

Group #1 subtotal = 18,522.5 123.2 $3,680,400

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A. Solvent Bearing 

Liquids (alkyl 

benzenes, toluene, 

xylene, methanol)

2,682 37.85% 56% 100% $845 568.5 $480,363

2B. Other Organic 

Liquids (acetone, 

methyl ethyl ketone, 

toluene, xylene)

1,073 27.31% 37% 100% $909 108.4 $98,557

Group #2 subtotal = 3,755 676.9 $578,900

Commodity Group #3: Other Materials

3A. Carbon 1,136 90% 100% 10% $4,289 102.2 $438,500

3B. Sodium Fluoride 0 2% 100% 0% $39,051 0 $0
94

Exhibit 8B

Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposed Wastes Meeting the Recycling Switchover Breakeven Test

A B C D E F G (B x C x D x E) H (F x G)

Type of commodity 

in baseline disposed 

wastes

Baseline 

disposed Waste 

quantity meeting 

breakeven test 

(tons/year)

Typical 

recoverable 

commodity 

concentration in 

disposed waste

(% waste tonnage)

Percentage of 

baseline 

disposed wastes 

which may 

contain the 

commodity

Breakeven 

test spread 

sheet 

calibration 

factor

Commodity 

value @90% 

market price 

for virgin 

materials

($/ ton)

Quantity of 

commodities 

potentially 

recoverable from 

disposed waste 

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

market value of 

recoverable 

commodities @90% 

virgin material price

Group #3 subtotal = 1,136 102.2 $438,500

Column Total = 23,413 902.3 $4.7 million

Explanatory Notes:

· Column A: Assumed commodity constituents in baseline disposed wastes identified based on data and references presented in Appendix A to this RIA.

· Column B: Tonnage is output of the spreadsheets used for the Chapter 8 micro-economic breakeven test of this RIA (based on 2005 RCRA Biennial Report).

· Column C: “Typical” concentrations calculated to represent tonnage-weighted mean (i.e., harmonic mean) concentrations relative to the entire quantity of the 

waste matrix for wastes with the chemical present (i.e., >0ppm) , based on parts-per-million (ppm) data and references presented in Appendix A to this RIA. 

For purpose of converting ppm data to percentages, the number 1,000,000 ppm is numerically equivalent to 100% of the entire waste tonnage, 500,000 ppm

equals 50% of the waste tonnage, 100,000 ppm equals 10% of the waste tonnage, and .10,000 ppm equals 1% of the waste tonnage.

· Column D: Derived from the data and references presented in Appendix A to this RIA.

· Column E: Calibration factor applied to the micro-economic breakeven test spreadsheets (Chapter 8 of this RIA) in order to calibrate the breakeven 

calculations so that the spreadsheets do not estimate that baseline disposed hazardous wastes would be expected to switch to recycling without de-regulatory 

industry cost savings from exclusions under the DSW final rule. This calibration factor can be interpreted as a numerical adjustment to offset and compensate 

for the lack of highly-detailed and exact unit cost estimates for each of the nationwide 100s of different industries consisting of 1,000s of facilities which are 

generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste streams which may be affected by the DSW rule, and which are evaluated in the breakeven spreadsheets 

(a total of 14,144 baseline disposal waste streams are evaluated in the breakeven spreadsheets). A 100% calibration factor in this Exhibit indicates no 

adjustment was required for the particular waste type. Calibration factors <100% in this Exhibit indicate the breakeven test spreadsheets estimated that the 

alternative cost for recycling the particular waste type in absence of the DSW exclusion cost savings was already lower than the current baseline hazardous 

waste disposal cost. For all such cases in the breakeven spreadsheets, the estimated recovered commodity market value component of the alternative recycling

cost was multiplied by the <100% factor to achieve parity in the estimated recycling cost with baseline disposal cost, absent the estimated cost savings of the 

DSW exclusions.

· Column F: Derived from the data and references in Appendix A to this RIA; 90% market price applied to account for perceived or real lower quality.
95

Chapter 9

De-Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimates

This chapter contains a series of exhibits which present the outcome of the net impact estimation spreadsheet computations for this 

RIA. The net impact estimates consist of three additive components:

1. Baseline cost: This RIA estimates annual industry cost savings to LQGs, SQGs, transporters, and TSDRFs for 

elimination of all 14 baseline regulatory cost elements estimated in Chapter 6 under all three DSW final 

rule exclusions. However, because baseline hazardous waste recyclers (particularly commercial 

recyclers) may operate multiple types of hazardous waste management units at their facilities (thus not 

completely eliminating their TSDF regulatory status under RCRA Subtitle C), this RIA only estimates 

baseline cost savings for one of the TSDRF recycler cost elements listed in Chapter 6 (i.e., Exhibit 6B 

row item 7 “Part B permit renewal” cost savings).

2. New costs: To affected industries for complying with the paperwork burden conditions under each DSW exclusion.

3. Net market value: Of industrial secondary materials recovered from potential switchover of some hazardous wastestreams 

from baseline disposal to new future recycling under the DSW exclusions (as estimated in Chapter 8).

The following exhibits parse the impact estimates (i.e., net cost savings) for each exclusion, according to 2-digit NAICS code

economic sub-sectors:

· Exhibit 9A: Presents estimated counts of affected hazardous industrial waste streams

· Exhibit 9B: Presents estimated counts of affected industrial facilities

· Exhibit 9C: Presents estimated counts of affected industries (i.e., 5-digit NAICS code industry counts within the 24 

different 2-digit NAICS sectors)

· Exhibit 9D: Presents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous wastes

· Exhibit 9E: Presents the dollar-value of estimated annual net cost savings to industry according to 2-digit NAICS sectors

· Exhibit 9F: Presents the combined impact for all three exclusions according to two impact components: (a) industry cost 

savings from de-regulation of baseline recycling (columns A to D), and (b) net cost savings from regulated 

baseline disposal switchover to de-regulated recycling (columns E to H).

· Exhibit 9G: Presents the estimated future shift in baseline RCRA regulatory generator status of affected industrial facilities 

(i.e., pre-rule and post-rule estimated counts of affected LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs)

This RIA estimates net cost savings to industry for each exclusion, based on the following additional considerations for some 

exclusions:
96

· Exclusion 1C: Tolling arrangement offsite recycling indirectly estimated using baseline offsite recycling for NAICS industry

code 32519 Other Organic Chemical Mfg.

· Exclusion 2: Offsite transfer recycling based on all other offsite recycling not covered under Exclusion 1 (i.e., mutuallyexclusive non-duplicative impact), plus all baseline disposal estimated to potentially shift to offsite recycling.

· Exclusion 3: Average annual waste stream count estimated by assuming one waste stream excluded per average annual 

affected facility. Note that each exhibit of this chapter does not present Exclusion 3 as a separate exhibit 

column according to the 2-digit NAICS code itemization, because Exclusion 3 is estimated in this RIA based 

on a simple methodology outside of the baseline recycling and baseline disposal datasets applied in the deregulatory cost savings and disposal switchover breakeven test analyses used to estimate impacts for 

Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2. For this reason, only the aggregate annual impact estimate for Exclusion 3 is 

presented as a bottom row of each exhibit.
97

Exhibit 9A

Estimated Average Annual Count of Affected Hazardous Waste Streams (2005)

(Count of Baseline Recycling Waste Streams + Count of Baseline Disposal Waste Streams Which May Switchover to Recycling)

A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 7 7

2 21 Mining 0 0 0 46 46

3 22 Utilities 0 2 0 218 218

4 23 Construction 1 0 0 34 35

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 76 76

6 32 Manufacturing 116 31 322 3,794 4,263

7 33 Manufacturing 60 21 0 9,076 9,157

8 42 Wholesale Trade 6 0 0 301 307

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 34 34

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 6 6

11 48 Transportation 2 0 0 277 279

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 2 0 48 50

13 51 Information 1 0 0 25 26

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 6 0 17 23

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 1 2 0 457 460

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 10 10

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 37 327 0 434 798

19 61 Educational Services 2 3 0 1,045 1,050

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 2 5 0 217 224

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 11 11

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 206 207

24 92 Public Administration 0 2 0 1,045 1,047

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 0

Column totals = 228 402 322 17,382 18,334

Sub-total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) = 18,106

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 74

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 18,408
98

Exhibit 9B

Estimated Count of Affected Facilities

(i.e., Existing Facilities Which May Become Eligible for the Three DSW Final Rule Exclusions)

A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 3 3

2 21 Mining 0 0 0 23 23

3 22 Utilities 0 2 0 105 107

4 23 Construction 1 0 0 23 24

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 38 38

6 32 Manufacturing 55 5 102 1,309 1,471

7 33 Manufacturing 40 10 0 2,497 2,547

8 42 Wholesale Trade 1 0 0 117 118

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 33 33

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 5 5

11 48 Transportation 1 0 0 116 117

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 1 0 31 32

13 51 Information 1 0 0 11 12

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 6 0 9 15

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 1 1 0 177 179

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 5 5

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 8 64 0 96 168

19 61 Educational Services 2 2 0 186 190

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 2 1 0 90 93

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 7 7

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 88 89

24 92 Public Administration 0 1 0 213 214

25 ?? NAICS code not provided

Column totals = 112 94 102 5,182 5,490

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 74

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 5,564
99

Exhibit 9C

Estimated Count of Affected Industries (5-digit NAICS codes)

A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Incremental above 

Exclusion 1A

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Incremental above 

Exclusion 1A & 1B

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Incremental above 

Exclusion 1A, 1B & 1C

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 1 1

2 21 Mining 0 0 0 4 4

3 22 Utilities 0 1 0 5 6

4 23 Construction 1 0 0 4 5

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 9 9

6 32 Manufacturing 21 1 1 44 67

7 33 Manufacturing 22 4 0 73 99

8 42 Wholesale Trade 1 0 0 13 14

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 0 0

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 1 1

11 48 Transportation 1 0 0 16 17

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 1 0 3 4

13 51 Information 1 0 0 3 4

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 1 0 3 4

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 1 1 0 4 6

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 1 1

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 3 3 0 7 13

19 61 Educational Services 2 0 0 3 5

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 2 0 0 4 6

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 1 1

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 4 5

24 92 Public Administration 0 1 0 8 9

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 0

Column totals = 55 14 1 211 281

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = Not Estimated

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 281
100

Exhibit 9D

Estimated Annual Tonnage of Affected Hazardous Wastes

(Based on 2005 Hazardous Waste Generation & Management Tons Reported in the RCRA Biennial Report)

A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 12 12

2 21 Mining 0 0 0 125 125

3 22 Utilities 0 <1 0 1,454 1,454

4 23 Construction 4 0 0 809 813

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 307 307

6 32 Manufacturing 140,187 1,265 41,561 169,118 352,131

7 33 Manufacturing 282,279 4,103 0 685,123 971,505

8 42 Wholesale Trade 654 0 0 28,145 28,799

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 235 235

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 53 53

11 48 Transportation 19 0 0 1,599 1,618

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 1 0 1,202 1,203

13 51 Information 11 0 0 256 266

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 3,413 0 85 3,498

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services <1 13 0 1,037 1,050

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 26 26

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 14,703 17,263 0 16,641 48,606

19 61 Educational Services 7 7 0 806 819

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 83 10 0 520 613

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 12 12

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 1,017 1,018

24 92 Public Administration 0 50 0 1,411 1,461

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 0

Column totals = 437,948 26,126 41,561 909,990 1,415,625

Sub-total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) = 977,677

(227,400 shipments*)

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 121,484

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 1.537 million

Explanatory Notes:

* Annual offsite shipments (i.e., RCRA manifests) affected estimated by dividing offsite tonnage by range of 4.3 tons average partial load from Exhibit D12 of this RIA.
101

Exhibit 9E

Estimated Net Annual Cost Savings to Industry (De-Regulatory Cost Savings to Baseline Recycling Plus Net Value of Commodities 

Recovered from Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling)*

A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $7,512 $7,512

2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $390,908 $390,908

3 22 Utilities $0 $67,766 $0 $1,164,898 $1,231,663

4 23 Construction $16,161 $0 $0 $227,356 $243,517

5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $563,771 $563,771

6 32 Manufacturing $598,500 $74,453 $3,152,740 $22,232,035 $26,017,729

7 33 Manufacturing $1,416,248 $262,935 $0 $43,731,442 $45,410,625

8 42 Wholesale Trade $229 $0 $0 $1,685,941 $1,686,170

9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $180,466 $180,466

10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $89,026 $89,026

11 48 Transportation ($1,108)* $0 $0 $1,854,278 $1,853,170

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $32,544 $0 $532,552 $565,097

13 51 Information $16,060 $0 $0 $226,667 $242,737

14 52 Finance & Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $27,692 $0 $104,741 $132,433

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $16,229 $50,126 $0 $2,711,792 $2,778,146

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $83,982 $83,982

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $147,296 $683,958 $0 $1,672,231 $2,503,484

19 61 Educational Services $30,679 $65,931 $0 $3,377,907 $3,474,516

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $13,953 $63,371 $0 $1,357,893 $1,435,217

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $63,965 $63,965

22 72 Accommod & Food Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 81 Other Services $0 $33,382 $0 $1,092,644 $1,126,027

24 92 Public Administration $0 $33,167 $0 $3,930,941 $3,964,109

25 ?? NAICS code not provided $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Column totals = $2,214,246 $1,394,325 $3,152,741 $87,282,962 $94,044,273

Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $19,770 $14,800 $30,900 $16,800 $17,100

Average per affected wastestream ($/waste) = $9,710 $3,470 $9,790 $5,020 $5,180

Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $5 $53 $76 $96 $62

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,279,795

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $95.3 million

* Reductions in state fees may influence a generator’s waste management decisions (e.g., disposal vs. recycling) and are included in the micro-economic breakeven test. 

Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic impact of the DSW final rule. Government fees often 

represent “transfer payments” not real resource costs. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.
102

Exhibit 9F

Estimated Net Impacts Parsed According to Two Major Components:

Impacts on Baseline Recycling and Impacts on Baseline Disposal

A B C D E F G H

Impact on Baseline Recycling Impact on Baseline Disposal (Switchover to Recycling)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

Waste 

streams Facilities Tons/year Net savings

Waste 

streams Facilities Tons/year Net savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 6 2 9 $6,229 1 1 3 $1,283

2 21 Mining 26 17 66 $306,089 20 8 58 $84,819

3 22 Utilities 181 91 1,354 $1,090,061 37 21 100 $141,602

4 23 Construction 17 15 684 $201,383 19 11 129 $41,134

5 31 Manufacturing 46 25 257 $457,325 30 15 50 $106,447

6 32 Manufacturing 2,867 1,001 346,491 $20,617,400 1,420 729 5,640 $5,400,329

7 33 Manufacturing 6,248 1,861 956,805 $38,229,311 2,936 1,078 14,701 $7,181,314

8 42 Wholesale Trade 149 71 28,192 $1,379,861 158 55 607 $306,309

9 44 Retail Trade 34 33 235 $180,466 0 0 0 $0

10 45 Retail Trade 4 4 49 $78,914 2 1 4 $10,112

11 48 Transportation 169 88 1,315 $1,580,602 110 44 303 $272,568

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 23 14 1,096 $369,577 27 18 107 $195,520

13 51 Information 25 12 245 $227,991 1 1 21 $14,745

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 18 12 3,489 $110,816 5 4 9 $21,617

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 254 118 654 $2,256,243 208 95 396 $521,903

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 7 4 17 $80,628 3 1 9 $3,354

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 697 148 48,406 $2,197,868 102 42 200 $305,615

19 61 Educational Services 404 134 546 $2,805,125 650 102 274 $669,391

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 144 68 419 $1,246,513 81 39 195 $188,703

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 10 6 12 $57,474 1 1 0 $6,491

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0

23 81 Other Services 192 78 959 $1,069,891 16 12 59 $56,135

24 92 Public Administration 398 124 910 $2,766,006 652 162 552 $1,198,103

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0

Column totals = 11,919 3,926 1,392,210 $77,315,777 6,479 2,440 23,413 $16,728,493

74 74 121,484 $1,279,795 = Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS not estimated) 

Baseline recycling + baseline disposal combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 18,408 5,564 1.537 million $95.3 million
103

Exhibit 9G below presents the estimated potential shift in RCRA regulatory generator classification (i.e., status) as a result of the DSW 

final rule exclusions. This potential change in RCRA status is a driver (i.e., determinant) for five of the 14 RCRA regulatory

paperwork burden elements itemized in Chapter 6 (i.e., Exhibit 6A row items 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, as determined by different unit costs for 

LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs shown in Exhibit 6B), and thus a driver for five of the 14 annual cost savings estimates displayed in the 

Exhibits of this chapter above. To a much lesser extent, RCRA generator status is also a determinant of one of the 12 DSW exclusion 

conditions itemized in Chapter 7 (i.e., row item 5 of Exhibit 7B).

The estimate of potential change in generator status in this RIA is in relation to the entire annual tonnage of baseline RCRA 

hazardous wastes generated or managed at each potentially affected facility (i.e., the facility-wide total annual tonnage for all 

hazardous waste streams generated or managed at a single facility), not just in relation to the sub-set of annual hazardous waste stream

tonnage which may be affected by the DSW final rule recovery/recycling exclusions. Thus, as estimated in this RIA, this potential 

shift in RCRA regulatory status for generators is potentially more beneficial to the relatively large number of small-sized facilities 

(e.g., small businesses) which generate a relatively small number (i.e., <5) of small tonnage hazardous wastes annually, and less 

beneficial to the relatively small number of large-sized facilities (e.g. large companies) which generate a large number (i.e., >5) of 

hazardous waste streams annually.

Exhibit 9G

Expected Change in Baseline RCRA Regulatory Generator Status Under the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from both baseline recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycling

A B C D E F G H I (H-D)

Baseline Facility Status Counts Post-Rule Facility Status Counts

Generator 

Status*

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 1

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 2

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 3

Combined

(Exclusions 

1+2+3)

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 1

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 2

Facilities 

Affected by 

Exclusion 3

Combined

(Exclusions 

1+2+3)

Impact 

(incremental 

change)

LQG 284 4,176 Not estimated 4,460 224 3,129 Not estimated 3,353 -1,107

SQG 19 923 Not estimated 942 66 1,319 Not estimated 1,385 +443

CESQG 5 83 Not estimated 88 18 734 Not estimated 752 +664

Column totals 308 5,182 74 5,564 308 5,182 74 5,564 0

Explanatory Notes:

* RCRA generator status is determined by the monthly hazardous waste generation tonnages reported by each facility in the RCRA Biennial Report:

· LQGs = >13.2 tons/year

· SQGs = Between 1.3 and 13.2 tons/year

· CESQG = <1.3 tons per year (note: this RIA counts facilities post-rule as CESQGs even if they are expected to become non-generators post rule).

“Acute hazardous” wastes determinations of generator status are not taken into consideration in this RIA.
104

Chapter 10

Distributional Effects

10A. Definition of Distributional Effects

This section presents an evaluation of potential distributional impacts of the DSW final rule on various industries which are interrelated (i.e., within the same 2-digit NAICS economic sector, or within the same 3-digit NAICS industry group, or in counterpart 

industries) to the industrial facilities subject to the 12 conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions. As stated in the Federal Register

announcement for the DSW final rule, its main purpose is to provide additional RCRA regulatory exclusions for industrial recycling:

“In today’s rule, EPA is revising the definition of solid waste to exclude from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA (42 

USC 6921 through 6939(e)) certain hazardous secondary materials which are being reclaimed. We have defined 

hazardous secondary materials as those which would be classified as hazardous wastes if discarded. We are also 

promulgating regulatory factors for determining when recycling is legitimate” (underscoring added here for emphasis).

Thus, entities affected by the rule are those industrial facilities which engage or support recycling operations according to the 

conditions of the DSW final rule. Under Exclusion 2, affected entities also include intermediate (middlemen) facilities. However, 

there are other industries which may be economically affected by the rule but which are not engaged in recycling or otherwise subject 

to the conditions of the DSW final rule, but which may experience gain or loss in business activity because of this rule. The purpose 

of this chapter is to identify these two sets of industries, by categorizing them as “direct effects” and “indirect effects”, respectively.

Public commentors on the 2003 RIA and 2007 RIA identified at least two such possible indirect effects:

1. NAICS 56221: The Environmental Technology Council (ETC) commenting on the 2003 DSW proposed rule identified 

a potential adverse effect on the NAICS 562211 commercial hazardous waste management industry.20

2. NAICS 327310: Portland cement manufacturing industry is another relatively large current receiver (i.e., consumer) of 

RCRA hazardous wastes for purpose of energy recovery (i.e., use as a fuel). Wastes used as fuel is a 

beneficial form of waste disposal whereby the energy content (i.e., Btu value) embodied in wastes is 

beneficially extracted during the waste’s destruction, by using the waste as fuel for an industrial process 

to augment other sources of fuel such as coal or natural gas.21 According to the Cement Kiln Recycling 

Coalition (CKRC; http://www.ckrc.org), 14 of the 100 to 105 Portland cement manufacturing plants in 

20 See pages 55 to 56 of ETC’s 25 Feb 2004 comments on OSW’s 2003 DSW proposed rule at: http://www.etc.org/ETC_Detailed_Comments.pdf

21 Additional background information about the US cement manufacturing industry and its energy consumption is available at: 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/Cement_Energy_Guide.pdf, LBNL-54036, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy 

Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for Cement Making, An Energy Star Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, Ernst Worrell & Christina Galitsky, 

Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Sponsored by the USEPA, Jan 2004.
105

the US receive RCRA hazardous wastes from fuel blenders who collect spent solvents from auto body

shops, printing plants, and large paint makers, and use the spent solvents to augment coal as a fuel for 

operating the kilns which produce Portland cement.

From a national economic perspective, this RIA evaluates two simplified categories of potential distributional effects.22 These two 

categories are simplified in this RIA, in the sense that baseline hazardous waste generators, baseline hazardous waste recyclers, and 

baseline hazardous waste disposers identified in the RCRA Biennial Report as facilities possibly subject to the DSW final rule, may in 

fact generate/handle/manage multiple types of wastes (i.e., both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes) involving multiple types of 

industrial operations, and therefore be classifiable according to multiple NAICS codes. An example of the former is some NAICS 

562211 hazardous waste TSDRFs may also be classifiable as NAICS 562212, 562213 or 562219 non-hazardous waste TSDRFs. An 

example of the later is NAICS 32 or NAICS 33 manufacturing industries may also be secondarily classifiable as NAICS 56 TSDRFs 

recyclers (e.g., NAICS 3314 secondary non-ferrous metal smelter manufacturers who receive metal-bearing secondary materials for 

metals recovery may also be secondarily classifiable as NAICS 56292 materials recovery facilities).

The two distributional effects categories evaluated in this RIA involve 23 industries:

1. Direct effects: Net economic gain or loss to industrial facilities engaged or supporting recycling operations and subject 

to the conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions according to 8 industries grouped into three groups:

o A. Hazardous waste recycling industries: This RIA simplistically assumes that hazardous waste 

recyclers will continue to provide recycling services under the DSW exclusions at a price which 

passes-through their de-regulatory cost savings to hazardous waste generator customers.

Note: This RIA does not evaluate the extent to which baseline hazardous waste 

recycling and baseline disposal switchover to recycling, may switch to 

non-hazardous waste recyclers.

o B. Intermediate (middlemen) service industries to hazardous waste and hazardous secondary

materials recyclers

o C. Transportation: Hazardous waste transport and hazardous secondary materials transport.

2. Indirect effects: Net economic gain or loss to industrial facilities which are not engaged in recycling nor otherwise 

subject to the recycling exclusion conditions of DSW final rule, but which are lateral or counterpart to 

the industries subject to the rule. This category includes 15 industries in four groups:

o D. Hazardous waste disposal industries (displaced by induced switchover to recycling)

o E. Non-hazardous waste disposal industries (displaced by induced switchover to recycling)

o F. Virgin materials production industries (resources conserved by recycling switchover)

22 Page 139 of USEPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses” (report no. EPA-240-R-00-003, Sept 2000; ), provides a descriptive distinction and 

definitions of “distributional effects” and “real resource effects”. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf).
106

o G. Coal mining: Identified in this RIA as an example substitute fuel to replace hazardous 

wastes currently disposed as fuel/energy which may be induced by the DSW final rule to switch 

to recycling; there many other possible substitute fuels not evaluated in this RIA.23

This chapter presents estimates for each category of potential distributional effects. It is important to note that indirect effects are not 

necessarily additive to direct effects in all cases because some indirect effects may represent financial “transfer effects” rather than 

“real resource effects”.

10B. Potential Distributional Effects on Industries

Exhibit 10A below presents potential distributional effects indicated by possible shifts in annual tonnages of current hazardous wastes 

which may become de-regulated as hazardous secondary materials, for 24 economic sub-sectors (i.e., at the 2-digit NAICS code level).

These tonnage shifts are estimated in relation to the affected tonnages displayed in Exhibit 9D. Based on the potential tonnage shifts 

displayed in Exhibit 10A, Exhibit 10B presents estimates of potential direct distributional effects, and Exhibit 10C presents estimates 

of potential indirect distributional effects in relation to annual business revenues. This RIA expresses these potential effects as a 

percentage of current annual business revenues per-facility in affected industries. There are six important limitations in the scope of 

the distributional effects estimated in this chapter:

1. Partial equilibrium effects: The effects represent “partial equilibrium” effects, not “general equilibrium” effects. In other 

words, this RIA estimates distributional effect based on static prices/costs, not based on dynamic 

prices/costs according to price elasticities (i.e., this RIA does not include potential changes in 

relative prices between (a) hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal services, (b) industrial 

hazardous secondary materials recycling services, (c) waste truck transportation services, or (d) 

23 In addition to hazardous waste spent solvents, there are reportedly at least 10 other categories of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and industrial byproduct or secondary materials which are also used as fuels by cement manufacturing plants (Source: William Gabbard & David Gossman, “Hazardous Waste 

Fuels and the Cement Kilns”, ASTM Standardization News, Sept 1990):

· Industrial and commercial paint solids/residues & blended paint wastes

· Solvent recycling residues (i.e., process still bottoms, distillation cuts/fractions and residues such as oils & resins)

· Metal working and machining spent lubricants, spent coolants, spent cutting fluids

· Used oil

· Petroleum refining residues

· Industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge (aka “filter cake”)

· Wood chips

· Used tires

· Agricultural wastes such as rice hulls

· Low organic level aqueous streams if matched with high Btu waste oils
107

recycled materials markets, as a result of the DSW rule).

2. Lateral/counterpart industries: Exhibit 10B presents potential distributional effects for 23 industries, not for all of the 100s of 

upstream and downstream industries inter-linked to affected facilities. The 23 industries 

represent two categories of industries:

o 19 lateral industries: Consisting of industries involved in hazardous and nonhazardous waste management recycling, disposal, transport, 

intermediate support services.

o 4 counterpart industries: Three commodity groups (i.e., metals, solvents, other 

materials) potentially affected by baseline disposal 

switchover to new recycling alternative supply of these 

materials, as well as energy production (coal mining) to 

offset the possible loss of energy recovery and fuel 

blending disposal tonnages that may switchover to 

recycling under the DSW rule.

3. Transportation modes: According to generalized data on hazardous waste transportation not specific to the hazardous 

wastes potentially affected by the DSW final rule, there are three modes of hazardous waste 

transport, of which trucking is the predominant mode (source: page 26 of OSW “Economics 

Background Document: Economic Analysis of the USEPA’s Final Rule Revisions to the RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Manifest Form”, 24 Nov 2004, document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032-

0106 at http://www.regulations.gov):

o NAICS 482 Rail transportation 6% of shipments

o NAICS 483 Water transportation 3% of shipments

o NAICS 484 Truck transportation 91% of shipments

This RIA does not distinguish distributional effects according to these three modes because this 

RIA simply assumes that current hazardous waste transporters (NAICS 562112) will continue to 

transport the de-regulated hazardous secondary material under the DSW rule, but at cost savings 

from reduced partial load surcharge fees and from shorter average haul distances.

4. Multiple unit facilities: Because each sub-sector consists of many different industries (i.e., multiple 5- and 6-digit 

NAICS codes), some material shifts may also occur within the same industry group (i.e., 3-digit 

NAICS code level), which is not indicated in Exhibit 10A. For example, DSW-excluded 

secondary materials could shift from baseline hazardous waste recycling and baseline hazardous 

waste disposal (NAICS 562211), to non-hazardous waste recycling (NAICS 56292 materials 

recovery). The likelihood of this inter-industry shift within the NAICS 562 waste management 

industry sub-group is not estimated in this RIA, for the following reason. According to written 

comments submitted 25 June 2007 to the DSW rulemaking docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA2002--0031 at http://www.regulations.gov from the Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 
108

which is a "national trade association of commercial firms that provide technologies and 

services to customers for the treatment, recycling, and secure disposal of industrial and 

hazardous wastes" (p.1), and which is "the largest association of companies that operate RCRApermitted facilities" (p.20), RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management permits (i.e., 

"RCRA permits") do not cover an entire single industrial facility or an entire single industrial 

property, but usually only cover a distinct plant/equipment operational "unit" within a single 

facility or property (e.g., waste landfill, waste storage tank, waste incinerator, waste recycling 

process, waste treatment process). For example, ETC stated:

"In some cases, the RCRA permit may address an unrelated unit elsewhere on the 

property, and the reclamation [i.e., recycling] facility itself is not in any way 

covered by the permit." (p.20).

On a single facility basis, both RCRA-permitted and non-permitted industrial recycling

operations may occur within a single facility/property (e.g., industrial secondary materials 

recovery facility), which makes it difficult to estimate in this RIA where (i.e., at RCRA-permitted 

facilities or at non-permitted facilities) future new induced industrial recycling may occur as a 

result of the DSW final rule.

5. Tertiary effects: Not included with the indirectly affected industries (Exhibit 10C) are potential tertiary indirect 

effects such as the possible reduction in sulfuric acid production associated with a reduction in 

virgin metals production from mineral ores.24

6. Industrial capacity: Furthermore, this methodology implicitly assumes that adequate industrial capacity exists in 

other industries affected by potential distribution effects. As a test of this second assumption, 

based on the most recent (2006) industrial capacity utilization data for US manufacturing 

industries, industrial capacity ranged between 62% to 72% in 2006 across the following three 

NAICS codes applied in this RIA as proxies for industries which may receive baseline disposed 

hazardous wastes which become DSW-excluded “hazardous secondary materials” for new 

future recycling, suggesting a range of 28% to 38% available non-utilized industrial capacity

(source: US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Economics & Statistics Administration, 

24 Sulfuric acid is a non-discretionary by-product of smelter SO2 recovery in metallic ore (sulfides) roasting in the production of copper, nickel, lead, zinc, 

molybdenum and gold. Approximately 10%of the US sulfuric acid market is supplied by smelter acid, the remainder coming from virgin acid production (via 

elemental sulfur burning, acid sludge burning and stack gas desulfurization). As of 1999, the following 14 metallic ore smelters had a sulfuric acid by-product 

production capacity of 4.765 million short-tons per year: 1. Asarco, East Helena MT, 2. Asarco, El Passo TX, 3. Asarco, Hayden AZ, 4. Big River Zinc, Sauget 

IL, 5. Chino Mines, Hurley NM, 6. Climax Molybdenum, Ft. Madison IA, 7. Doe Run, Herculaneum MO, 8. Kennecott Utah Copper, Magna UT, 9. Langeloth 

Metallurgical, 10. Langeloth PA, 11. Newmont Gold, Carlin NV, 12. Pasminco, Clarkesville TN, 13. Phelps Dodge Miami, Claypool AZ, 14. Zinc Corp, Monaca 

PA. Source: “Chemical Profiles,” Chemical Market Reporter, publication of the Schnell Publishing Company at: http://www.the-innovationgroup.com/ChemProfiles/Sulfuric%20Acid%20(smelter).htm
109

"Survey of Plant Capacity" data are only available for NAICS 31-33 manufacturing sectors at 

http://www.census.gov/cir/www/mqc1pag2.html):

o Proxy for solvent recycling: NAICS 325199 all other basic organic chemical 

mfg = 72% capacity utilization

o Proxy for metals recycling: NAICS 331492 other nonferrous metals secondary

smelting = 65% capacity

o Proxy for acids/other recycling: NAICS 325188 all other basic inorganic chemical 

mfg = 62% capacity
110

Exhibit 10A

Comparison of Distribution of Affected Materials Quantities Before & After DSW Final Rule

A B C D E F

Baseline (Pre-Rule) Post-Rule

Item

2-digit NAICS code Industry Location

of Recycling & Disposing Activities

Involving Hazardous Wastes

Affected by the DSW Final Rule

Location of baseline 

recycling expected to 

become excluded 

under DSW rule

(million tons/year)

Location of baseline 

disposal meeting 

breakeven test for 

switchover to 

recycling

(million tons/year)

Location of expected 

recycling post-rule 

(de-regulated + 

switchover)

(million tons/year) % change*

1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0 0 0 0%

2 21 Mining 39 16 39 -29%

3 22 Utilities 0 0.03 0 -100%

4 23 Construction 4 0 4 0%

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 0%

6 32 Manufacturing 416,091 408 416,091 0%

7 33 Manufacturing 581,664 84 600,187 +3%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 15,661 401 15,661 -2%

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 0%

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 0%

11 48 Transportation 33 0.004 33 0%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 187 35 187 -16%

13 51 Information 2,829 3 2,829 0%

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0%

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 15 1 15 -6%

16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 7 0.09 7 -1%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 0%

18 56 Admin Support, Waste Mgt 160,432 12,564 165,325 -4%

19 61 Educational Services 44 6 44 -12%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 106 0 106 0%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 0%

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 0 0 0%

23 81 Other Services 1 0 1 0%

24 92 Public Administration 76 13 76 -15%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided 215,020 9,883 215,020 -4%

Column totals = 1,392,210 23,417 1,415,625 0%

Exclusion 3 affected materials not itemized according to NAICS codes = 121,484

1.537 million

* % change = (E - (C+D)) / (C+D)
111

Exhibit 10B

Potential Direct Distributional Effects

on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

(Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

A. Industries Engaged in Recycling Operations Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule:

1 H010 haz waste 

metals recovery

331492 Secondary 

smelting, refining, alloying 

nonferrous metals

96 (a) +18,522 from 

hazardous waste 

disposal industries

· +$6,390,100

($345/ton x

18,522 tons)

· -$28,634,800 

(69% tonweighted from 

Exhibit 4C)

· -$41,499,600

decreased 

minimum charge 

revenues

· +$352,100 (Part 

B permit renewal 

savings: 96 x

$3,668/yr)

Net = -$21,892,500

-$228,000 $11,433,500 -1.995%

2 H020 haz waste 

solvent recovery

562 PLC 38472 haz waste 

recyclable material 

recovery & preparation 

services

57 (a) +3,755 tons from 

hazardous waste 

disposal industries

(organic containing

wastes)

· +$3,664,900

· ($976/ton x 

3,755 tons)

· -$6,224,900

(15% tonweighted from 

Exhibit 4C)

· -$41,499,600 

decreased 

minimum charge 

revenues

· +$206,700 (Part 

-$41,300 $9,797,500 -0.422%
112

Exhibit 10B

Potential Direct Distributional Effects

on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

(Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

B permit renewal 

savings: 57 x

$3,627/yr)

Net = -$2,353,300

3 H039 haz waste 

other materials

recovery (in this 

RIA H039 

represents carbon 

recovery)

562 PLC 38472 haz waste 

recyclable material 

recovery & preparation 

services

36 (a) +1,136 tons from 

hazardous waste 

disposal industries

(carbon recovery)

· +$986,000 

($868/ton x 

1,136 tons)

· -$6,639,900

(16% tonweighted from 

Exhibit 4C)

· -$41,499,600

decreased 

minimum charge 

revenues

· +$130,600 (Part

B permit renewal 

savings: 36 x 

$3,627/yr)

Net = -$6,508,400

-$180,800 $9,797,500 -1.845%

A, subtotal = 159

(non-duplicative)

+23,413 -$30,754,200

B. Intermediate (Middlemen) Service Industries Supporting Industrial Recyclers Subject to the DSW Final Rule

562 PLC 38510 haz waste 

brokers

4 Waste & Recycling Up to 119 (c) NNC NNC NNC $1,758,200 NNC

Brokerage facilities

562 PLC 38520 haz 

recyclable materials 

brokers

Up to 45 (c) NNC NNC NNC $15,751,100 NNC

5 Waste & materials 

transfer facilities 

562 PLC 38471 haz waste 

transfer facilities

Up to 225 (c) NNC NNC NNC $6,407,500 NNC
113

Exhibit 10B

Potential Direct Distributional Effects

on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

(Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

(storage & 

consolidation)

562 PLC 38771 non-haz 

waste & recyclable 

materials transfer facilities

Up to 1,248 (c) NNC NNC NNC $5,443,500 NNC

562 PLC 38472 prepare 

haz waste recyclable 

materials for recovery

6 Waste & materials Up to 108 (c) NNC NNC NNC $9,797,500 NNC

sorting facilities

562 PLC 38772 prepare

non-haz waste recyclable 

materials for recovery

Up to 1,125 (c) NNC NNC NNC $2,798,300 NNC

7 Industrial recyclable 

materials wholesale 

distribution facilities

42393 PLC 15330 

wholesale distributors of 

industrial recyclable 

materials including 

chemicals products, 

industrial gases, petroleum

Up to 16 (c) NNC NNC NNC $4,429,400 NNC

B. sub-total =

Up to 2,565 (c)

(non-duplicative) 0 $0

C. Truck Transportation Services Supporting Industrial Facilities Engaged in Recycling and Subject to the Terms of the DSW Final Rule

8 Truck Transportation

Note: Although 

tonnage loss is 

indicated in column 

E, this RIA assumes 

this effect involves 

reduction in fees 

charged rather than 

shift in tonnage to 

NAICS 4842 

specialized freight 

truck transport

562 PLC 38430

hazardous waste 

transportation services

Up to 358 -977,677

(Columns B+C+D of 

Exhibit 9D)

-$46,511,314

(Row 14 Exhibit 6C)

-$129,920 $5,927,690 -2.192%
114

Exhibit 10B

Potential Direct Distributional Effects

on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

(Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

Explanatory Notes:

· *PLC code = NAICS product line code.

· ** Hxxx = all other affected Hxxx disposal codes (i.e., not including codes H010, H020, H039, H050, H132, H134).

· NNC = “No net change” expected because this RIA assumes the potential distributional effect of the DSW final rule exclusions is a potential intra-industry shift rather than an 

inter-industry shift, because the particular affected industry has both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes or secondary materials product lines (i.e., as evidenced by NAICS 

product line code statistics).

· Column D data sources:

(a) Exhibit 4A off-site receivers of waste

(b) Exhibit 5A off-site receivers of waste

(c) Total establishment counts for NAICS industry code and/or specific NAICS PLC code from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census “2002 Economic Census” at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000.HTM

· Column H: average facility revenues calculated for each NAICS & PLC code by [(total annual PLC receipts) / (total count establishments)] based on data from the US Dept of 

Commerce Bureau of Census 2002 Economic Census “Industry Series” data for respective NAICS industry and PLC codes at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM
115

Exhibit 10C below presents four groups of possible indirect distributional effects for industrial facilities not engaged in recycling nor 

subject to the conditions of the DSW final rule. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, this classification is a simplification 

because many facilities in these industries may have multiple NAICS codes reflecting diverse operations at any single facility within 

the groups displayed below in Exhibit 10C. The indirect distributional effects for non-hazardous commercial waste management 

industries are already included in the impact estimates of Chapter 9. The potential decrease in virgin materials production is estimated 

based on the tonnage of baseline disposal switchover to recycling estimated in Chapter 8 (Exhibit 8B) of this RIA. The potential 

increase in coal production represents a replacement energy source for the anticipated switchover of beneficial disposal to recycling as 

a result of the DSW final rule (i.e., switchover of baseline H050 energy recovery and baseline H061 fuel blending), which this RIA 

estimates in Chapter 9 (Exhibit 9F).

Exhibit 10C

Potential Indirect Distributional Effects

on 15 Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues

(Note: Column A row item numbers follow consecutively from Exhibit 10B)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

D. Hazardous Waste Disposal Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

H050 haz waste 

energy recovery 

beneficial disposal

· 21223 Copper, lead, 

nickel & zinc mining

· 3241 Petroleum & 

coal products mfg

· 325 Chemical mfg

· 327 Nonmetallic 

mineral (cement mfg)

· 493 Warehousing

· 561 Admin. support

· 562 Waste mgt

44 (b)

By NAICS code:

2123 = 3.6% = 1

3241 = 4.2% = 2

325 = 6.3% = 3

327 = 46.8% = 20

493 = 1.6% = 1

561 = 1.2% = 1

562 = 36.0% = 15

Misc = 3.9% =1

· -3,755 tons 

(switch to haz. 

waste solvent 

recovery)

· +1,239 tons 

(33% haz. waste 

solvent recovery 

tons are residuals 

& 100% require 

energy recovery; 

assume continue 

haz. energy 

recovery)

· +0 tons (assume 

deregulated 

· -$568,600 

($226/ton H050 

energy recovery 

fee x -2,516 net 

tons)

· -$191,800 loss 

for increased

coal purchase (e)

Net = -$760,400

-$17,300 By NAICS:

$48,041,200

$95,187,000

$34,166,300

$5,702,200

$1,305,900

$1,148,700

$2,749,400

By NAICS:

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%
116

Exhibit 10C

Potential Indirect Distributional Effects

on 15 Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues

(Note: Column A row item numbers follow consecutively from Exhibit 10B)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

“listed” baseline 

recycling 

residuals 

continue haz. 

energy recovery)

Net =-2,516 tons

16 H132 landfill or 

surface 

impoundment 

disposal

562 PLC 38441 haz waste 

landfill disposal

44 (b) · -18,522 tons 

(switching to haz 

waste metals 

recovery)

· +5,631 tons 

(32% of haz. 

waste metals 

recovery tons are 

residuals & 95% 

remains haz 

requiring 

landfill)

· + 85 tons (10% 

of haz. waste 

other recovery 

tons are residuals 

& 75% remain 

haz requiring 

landfill)

· -25,132 tons 

(deregulated 

“listed” baseline 

recycling 

residuals)

- $8,460,200

($223/ton x 37,938 

tons)

-$192,300 $5,784,400 -3.324%
117

Exhibit 10C

Potential Indirect Distributional Effects

on 15 Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues

(Note: Column A row item numbers follow consecutively from Exhibit 10B)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

Net = -37,938 tons

17 H134 deepwell 

injection disposal

562 PLC 38442 haz waste 

deepwell & other disposal

0 0 $0 $0 $7,572,000 0%

18 Hxxx** other 

disposal methods

(H040 incineration)

562 PLC 38450 haz waste 

disposal other than 

confinement

88 (b) -1,136 tons (switch to 

haz. waste other 

recovery: carbon 

regeneration)

- $648,700

($571/ton x 1,136 

tons)

-$7,400 $7,678,600 -0.096%

D. subtotal = 176 -41,590 -$9,869,300

E. Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule:

19 Non-hazardous 

waste landfills

562 PLC 38791 non-haz 

waste landfill disposal 

services

Up to 2,012 (c) · +25,132 tons 

(deregulated 

“listed” baseline 

recycling 

residuals)

· +296 tons (32% 

of switch to 

metals recovery 

tons are residuals 

&5% non- haz 

requires landfill)

· +28 tons (10% of 

switch to other 

recovery are 

residuals & 25% 

is non- haz 

requiring 

landfill) 

Net = +25,456 tons

+$943,500

($37/ton x 25,500

tons)

+$500 $3,513,700 +0.014%

E. subtotal = Up to 2,012 +25,456 +$943,500
118

Exhibit 10C

Potential Indirect Distributional Effects

on 15 Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues

(Note: Column A row item numbers follow consecutively from Exhibit 10B)

A B C D E F G (F/D) H I 

(G/Hx100)

Item

Type of Industrial 

Material or Business 

Activity Potentially 

Affected

NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)

2005 count of 

potentially 

affected facilities

Potential annual 

quantity materials 

affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)

Potential annual 

distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss

Average

annual effect 

per affected 

facility

2002 average

annual facility 

revenues for 

PLC

Distribution 

effect as % 

of average 

facility 

PLC 

revenues

F. Virgin Industrial Materials Production Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Terms of the DSW Final Rule:

20 Virgin metals 

production

331419 Other nonferrous 

metal primary smelting

Up to 172 (c) -123 -$3,680,400

(from Exhibit 8B)

-$21,400 $13,752,400 -0.156%

21 Virgin solvent 

production

325199 All Other Basic 

Organic Chemical Mfg

Up to 685 (c) -677 -$578,900

(from Exhibit 8B)

-$900 $70,496,800 -0.001%

22 Virgin other 

materials production

325182 Carbon black mfg Up to 25 (c) -102

(carbon)

-$438,500

(from Exhibit 8B)

-$17,500 $41,340,600 -0.0004%

F. subtotal = Up to 882 -902 -$4.7 million

G. Ancillary Industries:

23 Coal production 2121 Coal mining Up to 1,190 (c) +2,413 (d) +$191,800 (e) +$200 $17,303,700 +0.0012%

Net materials resource conservation (14+15+16+17) = -$4.5 million

Explanatory Notes:

· *PLC code = NAICS product line code.

· Column D data sources:

(c) Total establishment counts for NAICS industry code and/or specific NAICS PLC code from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census “2002 Economic Census” at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000.HTM

· Column E data sources:

(d) Step 1: Assume the estimated annual tonnage that may switchover from H050 energy recovery disposal to future solvent recycling, has 8.34 lbs/gallon specific gravity 

similar to water: (2,516 net H050 short tons/year switchover to recycling) x (2,000 lbs/short ton) x (1 gallon per 8.34 lbs) = 603,400 gallons/year spent solvent equivalent 

switchover from H050 to solvent recycling. Step 2: Assume ratio coal:to:H050 spent solvent is 800,000 tons coal for every 200 million gallons H050 spent solvent:

(603,400 gallons/year H050 spent solvent switchover to recycling) x (800,000 tons/200,000,000 gals) = 2,413 tons/year coal equivalent (ratio source: page 5 at 

http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/cement/tf2/HWF-CKS.pdf).

(e) Assume average delivered cost of coal = $53/ton (source: average of 07 March 2008 spot prices for coal for five US regional coal supply sources which ranged 

between $14/ton to $84/ton http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html), and assume shipping & handling adds 50%: (2,413 tons/year coal 

equivalent) x ($53/ton x 1.50 S&H) = $191,800/year cost of equivalent coal to replace loss of H050 spent solvents.

· Column H: average facility revenues calculated for each NAICS & PLC code by [(total annual PLC receipts) / (total count establishments)] based on data from the US Dept of 

Commerce Bureau of Census 2002 Economic Census “Industry Series” data for respective NAICS industry and PLC codes at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM
119

10C. Potential Distribution Effects on State Governments (Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues)

Certain state governments charge hazardous waste generation taxes and fees. Under the DSW final rule, some industrial secondary

materials may no longer be regulated as RCRA hazardous waste, and thus the generators may no longer incur a state government 

hazardous waste generation tax or fee for affected baseline hazardous wastes. Depending upon the extent to which state governments 

adopt the DSW final rule as part of their RCRA-authorized programs, certain state government hazardous waste programs may

experience reductions in annual revenues from these fees. Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in 

this RIA for estimating the net economic impact of the DSW final rule, because government taxes often represent “transfer payments”

not real resource costs. However, reductions in taxes and fees may influence a generator’s waste management decisions (e.g., disposal 

vs. recycling) and are included in the financial breakeven test in this RIA.

Exhibit 10D below presents the estimated potential future reduction in state government hazardous waste tax/fee annual 

revenues as a result of the 2008 DSW final rule. These estimates are based on the state government hazardous waste generation fees 

identified for 31 states in Appendix E to this RIA. The remaining 20 states (including the District of Columbia) either (a) could not 

be determined from the data source reviewed if hazardous wastes that are recycled are taxed similarly to wastes that are treated or 

disposed, and further clarification is needed to determine applicability (applicable to eight states), or (b) charge TSDFs for permits or

other waste management fees but do not charge waste generators. Note that at least one state (SC) charges both hazardous waste and 

non-hazardous waste fees.

Exhibit 10D

Estimated Potential Reduction in State Government Hazardous Waste Tax/Fee Annual Revenues

As a Result of the 2008 DSW Final Rule (2007$/year)*

Generator Impact Category

Exclusion 1:

Generator 

Controlled

Exclusion 2:

Transfer-Based

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance

Combined

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1 Baseline RCRA-regulated hazardous waste recycling 

that may become excluded under the DSW final rule

$279,185 $4,698,582 $56,460 $5,034,227

2 Baseline RCRA-regulated hazardous waste disposal that 

may be induced to de-regulated recycling under the 

DSW final rule

$0 $46,444 $0 $46,444

Totals = $279,185 $4,465,841 $56,460 $5.1 million

Explanatory Notes:

* Annual revenue reduction estimates in this Exhibit are based on hazardous waste generator tax/fee data for 31 states displayed in Appendix 

E of this RIA. The impacts do not include eight states (DE, IL, NE, NV, NY, OH, TX, WV) for which further analysis needs to be conducted 

to determine tax rates. 
120

Chapter 11

Countervailing Risks

Note: This chapter presents a qualitative screening analyses which corroborates OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW 

proposed rule assertion: “EPA expects that this proposal will encourage the safe, beneficial recycling of 

hazardous secondary materials... while at the same time maintaining protection of human health and the 

environment” (Source: Federal Register, Vol.68, No.208, 28 Oct 2003, p.61560 and Vol.72, No.57, 26 March 

2007, p.14174, respectively).

11A. Definition of Countervailing Risk

OMB Circular A-4 indicates that Federal agencies should look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of rulemakings and consider 

any important countervailing risks. OMB defines a countervailing risk as:

“[A] countervailing risk is an adverse economic, health, safety, or environmental consequence that occurs due to a rule 

and is not already accounted for in the direct cost of the rule.”25

The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate potential countervailing risks concerning unintentional future environmental, human health, 

and safety risks identified by 18 public commentors on OSWs 2003 and 2007 DSW rulemaking proposals, listed in Exhibit 11A:

Exhibit 11A

18 Public Commentors on Possible Countervailing Risks

Count Type of Commentor Commentor Identity

1 Federal government US Congress

3 Commercial TSDFs American Ecology Corp, Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc, Safety-Kleen Systems Inc

3 Industry associations Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, Environmental Technology Council, IPC Association Connecting Electronics 

Industries

4 State governments Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina

7 Environmental 

organizations

Earth Justice, Sierra Club, US Public Interest Research Group, Nat’l Environmental Trust, NW Environmental 

Defense Center, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Safe Food & Fertilizer

25 Source: Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis, 17 Sept 2003, p.26; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a4.pdf.
121

11B. Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors

Exhibit 11B below identifies the 12 countervailing risks the 18 public commentors requested OSW analyze and quantify to the extent 

possible. Please note that the categories in the Exhibit are overlapping. They are not intended to be mutually exclusive but rather to 

represent the variety of potential negative outcomes noted by the public commentors.

Exhibit 11B

12 Overlapping Categories of Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors

Item Type of Countervailing Risk Description of Countervailing Risk

1 Recycling environmental 

damages

Potential increase in future industrial recycling environmental damages & cleanup costs

2 Industrial secondary materials 

testing

Potential decrease in assurance that excluded industrial secondary materials will be adequately tested to determine 

if they are hazardous.

3 Community & groundwater 

impacts

Potential increase in environmental, health, and safety risks from wastes formerly sent to RCRA Subtitle C 

landfills may now be disposed at other facilities with less monitoring of community & groundwater impacts.

4 Employee training Potential increase in environmental, health, and safety risks from reduction in training of industrial employees 

thereby increasing risk during handling and transport of excluded materials.

5 Human exposure to hazardous 

materials

Potential increase in human exposure risk to hazardous secondary materials.

6 Material shipments Potential increase in environmental, health, and safety risks of misdirected, abandoned, and lost hazardous 

secondary materials shipments.

7 DSW rule compliance 

enforcement

Potential increase in costs for compliance assurance and enforcement with the 12 conditions of DSW exclusions.

8 Abandoned recycling sites Potential increase in costs for investigating and stabilizing abandoned recycling sites.

9 Recycler site inspections Potential reduction in inspections may lead to future increase in sites requiring remediation.

10 Worker fatalities/injuries from 

inter-industry distributional 

effects

Potential increase use of additional coal to offset the likely shift of hazardous wastes currently burned as fuel (i.e., 

energy recovery) to future recycling, may increase coal miner fatalities/injuries.

· Note: Although not identified by public commentors, for purpose of formulating a balanced evaluation 

of this potential countervailing risk, this RIA also evaluates potential distributional effects on 

worker fatalities/injuries in virgin materials producing industries other than coal production.

11 Commercial recycler

bankruptcy

Potential increase in risk that current commercial recyclers may fail in bankruptcy from increased competition by 

non-regulated recyclers

12 Other environmental & health 

programs

Potential adverse impacts on functioning of other public programs that protect the environment & public health.
122

11C.Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology

The countervailing risks addressed in this chapter represent screening analyses and with the exception of one risk element, represent 

qualitative analyses. USEPA’s information and data quality guidelines26, which are based on OMB’s government-wide policy

regarding information dissemination to the public, describe mechanisms USEPA will use to ensure to the objectivity, accuracy, 

reliability, and un-biasness of data and information of USEPA risk assessments. According to the flexibility of those guidelines, the

risk analysis of this chapter does not meet the “influential” risk assessment criteria. Rather, this risk analysis represents a relatively

low level-of-effort “screening” risk analysis approach, which under the guidelines may be appropriate for environmental, ecological, 

human health and safety risk assessments:

“EPA conducts many risk assessments every year. Some of these are screening level assessments based on scientific 

experts' judgments using conservative assumptions and available data and can involve human health, safety, or 

environmental risk assessments. Such screening assessments provide useful information that are sufficient for 

regulatory purposes in instances where more elaborate, quantitative assessments are unnecessary. For example, such 

assessments could indicate, even with conservative assumptions, the level of risk does not warrant further 

investigation." "Only if potential risks are identified in a screening level assessment is it necessary to pursue a more 

refined, data-intensive risk assessment..,, Nevertheless, such assessments may be useful in making regulatory 

decisions, as when the absence of concern from a screening level assessment is used (along with other information) to 

approve the new use of a pesticide or chemical or to decide whether to remediate very low levels of waste 

contamination." (Source: USEPA Information Quality Guidelines Section A.3.6).

11D. Evaluation of 12 Countervailing Risks

· 11D-1. Potential Increase in Future Industrial Recycling Environmental Damages & Cleanup Costs

This section presents a qualitative, screening analysis of the potential impact of the DSW final rule exclusions on environmental 

protection. This qualitative risk screening analysis begins by examining the causes for environmental damages in OSW’s study27 of 

26 USEPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI), “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency”, EPA/260R-02-008, Oct 2002, 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf

27 Source: OSW, “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials”, 11 Jan 2007, Docket document ID 

nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0355 available at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr.htm. OSW conducted the 

2007 recycling damage study in response to public commentors on the 2003 DSW proposed rule. OSW summarized the recycling damage case study findings in 

the 2007 DSW supplemental proposal (Federal Register, Vol.72, No.57, 26 March 2007, pp.14180-14182), and provided the study report and its appendices as 

background documents to the March 2007 DSW supplemental proposal.
123

208 historical industrial recycling damage cases. These 208 cases are a non-exhaustive set of damage cases which occurred between 

1982 and 2005. Exhibit 11C below presents a comparison of the major causes of environmental damages in the 2008 cases, to the 

environmental, health, and safety protection conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions. OSW selected these conditions to safeguard 

against the causes uncovered in the damage case study. The extent to which the conditions address the major causes is a rough 

indicator that the DSW final rule may prevent an increase in industrial recycling damages in the future, relative to recent historical 

average annual industrial recycling damages involving hazardous secondary materials. The historical recycling damage causation 

identification method is explained in the 2007 damage case background document:

"Many of the cases that were investigated were well documented, and we were able to assemble virtually all of this 

information. This was the case, for example, for many of the Superfund NPL sites. However, in many other cases it was 

not possible given the limitations of the study to document all of these facts. Often, there was considerable technical 

information as to the nature and extent of the contamination at the site, but relatively little information regarding the 

activities and circumstances that originally caused it. For some of the sites, we were able to collect only very basic 

information.... While our analysis did not attempt to probe in great detail the exact actions or circumstances that led to 

contamination problems at these sites, in most cases we were able to identify in general terms the primary cause of the 

contamination." Source: pp. 5 & 8 at:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf.

Exhibit 11C below presents the five primary categories of known causes --- which account for 96% of all causes in the historical 

damage cases reference study after subtracting the 4% “unknown causes” category, and compares these causes with the 

implementation conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions (as listed in Exhibit 7A of this RIA, plus the legitimate recycling factors

described in Chapter 3). As displayed at the bottom of Exhibit 11C, this comparison (i.e., gap analysis) reveals that the DSW final rule 

conditions address the damage causes for all three exclusions, which suggests a high level of protection from future recycling 

operation-related damages to the environment and human health. Furthermore, most all exclusions have three or more protective 

conditions which address each of the five known primary causes of historical recycling damages.
124

Exhibit 11C

Comparison of the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

to Historical Causes of Industrial Recycling Damages Involving Hazardous Secondary Materials

A B C D E

Primary cause 

of historical 

recycling 

environmental 

damages

Historical 

occurrence in 

208 recycling 

damage cases 

(1982-2005)

Exclusion 1:

Generator-controlled recycling involving 

land- & non-land based recycling units

Exclusion 2:

Transfer-based recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-case variance

non-waste determination

1. Mismanagement 

of recyclables

40%

(81 cases)

· No speculative accumulation

· Materials must be contained

· Generator initially, annually & upon 

change notifies USEPA of offsite 

recycling shipments

· Generator maintains offsite 

recycling shipment records 

(receipts)

· Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSWexcluded material as valuable 

commodity, or as analogous raw 

material, or contained (40 CFR 

260.43).

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· Does recycler intend to 

legitimately recycle the 

material? (40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable 

efforts question #1 of 5)

· Generator maintains offsite 

recycling shipment records

· Credible evidence recycler will 

manage materials safely based 

on environmental violations 

history (40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable 

efforts question #3 of 5)

· Materials must be contained

· 1

st Criterion for continuous process: 

extent the secondary material is managed 

as part of the continuous process (40 CFR 

260.34(b)).

· 1

st Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

likely markets and market value for 

secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))

· Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSWexcluded material as valuable commodity, 

or as analogous raw material, or contained

(40 CFR 260.43).

2. Mismanagement 

of recycling 

residuals

34%

(71 cases)

· Materials must be contained

· Corollary to Legitimacy Factor 1 : 

in cases where a hazardous 

component of the secondary 

material is not being used in the 

recycling process, the recycler is 

responsible for management of any 

hazardous residuals of the recycling 

process (40 CFR 260.43).

· RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 

regulations still apply to residuals 

either exhibiting 40 CFR 261 

subpart C hazardous characteristics 

or 40 CFR 261 subpart D hazardous 

waste listing descriptions

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· Recycler has financial 

assurance for site closure.

· Does recycler have permits to 

manage residuals, or credible 

evidence that recycler will 

manage residuals safely? (40 

CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) 

reasonable efforts question #5 

of 5)

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· 3

rd Criterion for continuous process: 

whether hazardous constituents in 

secondary materials are reclaimed rather 

than released to the air, land or water (40 

CFR 260.34(b)).

· 4

th Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

whether hazardous constituents in the 

secondary materials are reclaimed rather 

than released to the air, land, water (40 

CFR 260.34(c)).

3. Abandoned 

materials

14%

(30 cases)

· Materials must be contained

· No speculative accumulation

· Generator initially, annually & upon 

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· Does recycler has financial 

assurance for site closure? (40 

CFR 261.4(a)(24)(vi(B) 

· Materials must be contained

· 1

st Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

likely markets and market value for 

secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))
125

Exhibit 11C

Comparison of the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

to Historical Causes of Industrial Recycling Damages Involving Hazardous Secondary Materials

A B C D E

Primary cause 

of historical 

recycling 

environmental 

damages

Historical 

occurrence in 

208 recycling 

damage cases 

(1982-2005)

Exclusion 1:

Generator-controlled recycling involving 

land- & non-land based recycling units

Exclusion 2:

Transfer-based recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-case variance

non-waste determination

change notifies USEPA of offsite 

recycling shipments

· Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSWexcluded material as valuable 

commodity, or as analogous raw 

material, or contained (40 CFR 

260.43).

reasonable efforts question #2 

of 5)

· 2

nd Criterion for continuous process: 

capacity of production process to use the 

secondary material in a reasonable time

(40 CFR 260.34(b))

· Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSWexcluded material as valuable commodity, 

or as analogous raw material, or contained

(40 CFR 260.43).

4. Fire or 

accident

5%

(11 cases)

· Materials must be contained

· No speculative accumulation

· Legitimacy Factor 4: product of 

recycling process does not contain 

hazardous constituent 

concentrations or exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic 

(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

toxicity) (40 CFR 260.43).

[Note: Although not counted in this RIA 

exhibit as a condition of this DSW 

exclusion, other regulatory fire and 

accident prevention requirements apply 

such as OSHA workplace standards & 

local fire codes.]

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· Does recycler have equipment 

& trained personnel for safe 

recycling? (40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable 

efforts question #4 of 5)

· Recycler must have liability 

insurance for accidents

· Legitimacy Factor 4: product of recycling 

process does not contain hazardous 

constituent concentrations or exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic (ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity) (40 CFR 

260.43).

[Note: Although not counted in this RIA 

exhibit as a condition of this DSW exclusion, 

other regulatory fire and accident prevention 

requirements apply such as OSHA workplace 

standards & local fire codes.]

5. Sham 

recycling

3%

(7 cases)

· Legitimacy Factor 1: DSWexcluded material must provide a 

useful contribution to the recycling 

process (40 CFR 260.43).

· Legitimacy Factor 2: recycling 

process must produce a valuable 

product (40 CFR 260.43).

· Legitimacy Factor 3: generator & 

recycler manages secondary 

materials as a valuable commodity

(40 CFR 260.43).

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· Does the recycler intend to 

legitimately recycle the 

material? (40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable 

efforts question #1 of 5)

Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

· 1

st Criterion for continuous process: 

extent the secondary material is managed 

as part of the continuous process (40 CFR 

260.34(b)).

· 2

nd Criterion for continuous process: 

capacity of production process to use the 

secondary material in a reasonable time

(40 CFR 260.34(b)).

· 3

rd Criterion for continuous process: 

whether hazardous constituents in 
126

Exhibit 11C

Comparison of the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

to Historical Causes of Industrial Recycling Damages Involving Hazardous Secondary Materials

A B C D E

Primary cause 

of historical 

recycling 

environmental 

damages

Historical 

occurrence in 

208 recycling 

damage cases 

(1982-2005)

Exclusion 1:

Generator-controlled recycling involving 

land- & non-land based recycling units

Exclusion 2:

Transfer-based recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-case variance

non-waste determination

· Legitimacy Factor 4: product of 

recycling process does not contain 

hazardous constituent 

concentrations or exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic (40 CFR 

260.43).

secondary materials are reclaimed rather 

than released to the air, land or water (40 

CFR 260.34(b)).

· 1

st Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

likely markets and market value for 

secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))

· 2

nd Criterion for indistinguishable 

product: chemical/physical identity of 

secondary material comparable to 

products or intermediates (40 CFR 

260.34(c))

· 3rd Criterion for indistinguishable 

product: capacity of market to use the 

secondary material in a reasonable time

(40 CFR 260.34(c)).

· 4

th Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

whether hazardous constituents in the 

secondary materials are reclaimed rather 

than released to the air, land, water (40 

CFR 260.34(c)).

· 5

th Criterion for indistinguishable product: 

any other relevant factors that 

demonstrate the material is not discarded

(40 CFR 260.34(c)).

6. Unknown 

causes

4%

(8 cases)

Not analyzed in this RIA Not analyzed in this RIA Not analyzed in this RIA

Duplicative count* of protective 

conditions =

19 25 25

(actual count will vary on case-by-case basis)

Explanatory Notes:

* Total counts in this Exhibit are duplicative because they double-count exclusion conditions as relevant to more than one recycling damage cause. Furthermore, 

these duplicative counts are higher than the counts of conditions displayed in Exhibits 7A and 7C of this RIA, because this Exhibit distinguishes the following 

requirement sub-items: (a) four “legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non-mandatory factors) which are common to all three DSW recycling 

exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) five sub-elements of due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c) nine criteria for making a 

non-waste determination under Exclusion 3.
127

The 11 remaining categories of countervailing risks discussed in the following sections of this chapter do not coincide with the 4% of 

damages from unknown causes that is listed in Exhibit 11C (row item 6). Instead the categories of potential countervailing risks 

covered in the remainder of this chapter reflect descriptions provided by public commenters of potential negative consequences 

associated with the DSW rule.

· 11D-2. Potential Decrease in Assurance That Excluded Industrial Secondary Materials Will be 

Adequately Tested to Determine if They Are Hazardous

Adequate testing is assured by one of the legitimate recycling factors: whether the product or the recycling process contains hazardous 

constituents or exhibits a hazardous characteristic. This factor is assumed to be current (baseline) practice because USEPA already

issued this factor in 1989 as policy guidance (“Lowrance Memo”; OSWER directive 9441.1989(19), 26 April 1989), which has been 

applied by state governments to determine “legitimate” from “sham” industrial recycling.

· 11D-3. Wastes Formerly Sent to RCRA Subtitle C Landfills May Now be Disposed at Other Facilities 

With Less Monitoring of Community & Groundwater Impacts

Wastes sent to Subtitle C landfills will not be excluded by the DSW rule unless they shift to legitimate recycling operations which 

conform to the exclusion requirements. In such cases, the affected materials formerly sent to Subtitle C landfills will be recycled and 

not disposed elsewhere. Furthermore, any residuals generated from recycling the formerly landfilled materials at an DSW-excluded 

recycling operation must be managed in an environmentally protective manner, and if any residuals exhibit a hazardous characteristic 

according to 40 CFR 261 Subpart C, or themselves are RCRA-listed hazardous wastes, they are hazardous wastes if discarded and 

must be managed according to the applicable RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 260 to 272.

· 11D-4. Potential Reduction in Training of Industrial Employees Thereby Increasing Risk During 

Handling & Transport of Excluded Materials

All employees of truckers, air shippers, and vessel shippers who directly affect the safe and legal packaging, shipping, or transportation 

of hazardous materials must be trained before performing hazmat duties (and retrained every three years and as rules change) 

according to US Department of Transportation (DOT) 49 CFR haz mat training regulations, plus IATA dangerous goods training for 

air employees, and IMO dangerous goods training for vessel employees. This training consists of hazardous materials classification, 

proper shipping name, packaging requirements, preparing DOT shipping papers, hazard communication container marking/labeling, 

placards, loading, moving, unloading, security, handling incidents, emergencies, and recordkeeping.
128

· 11D-5. Potential Increase in Human Exposure to Hazardous Materials

Based on the historical recycling damage cases reviewed in Exhibit 11C above, the two causal factors “mis-management of recycling 

residuals” and the “fire or accident” (i.e., row items 1 and 4 in Exhibit 11C, respectively) which could cause immediate human 

exposure risks are addressed by the conditions of each exclusion. Furthermore, the other causal factors which could result in either 

direct or indirect human exposure risks are also addressed by two or more conditions for each exclusion. Therefore, this RIA does not 

anticipate potential increase in human exposure.

· 11D-6. Potential Increase in Misdirected, Abandoned, and Lost Shipments

One of the 208 historical recycling damage cases in OSW’s non-exhaustive study (FLD982085003; 1994) compiled in the “Appendix 

2: Profiles of Damage Cases from Hazardous Materials Recycling Operations” involved a roadway truck abandoned shipment over the 

24-year historical period (source: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/app-2.pdf). Based on the historical recycling 

damage case causation evaluation presented in Exhibit 11C above, the “abandoned materials” causal factor (i.e., row item 3 in Exhibit 

11C) is addressed by all three DSW final rule exclusions, which suggests no expected change (increase) in this countervailing risk.

· 11D-7. Potential Increase in Costs for Compliance Assurance & Enforcement with Conditions of DSW 

Exclusions

The DSW final rule is voluntary, not mandatory, for RCRA-authorized state governments to adopt. State governments may potentially

weigh any possible increase in compliance assurance and enforcement costs, with the anticipated economic benefits the DSW final 

rule exclusions may have in their respective states, such that the incremental costs to the state governments are benefit-cost justified at 

a societal level. The expected net change in RCRA administrative paperwork burden costs (such as labor FTE costs for increased 

compliance and enforcement burden) to RCRA-authorized state governments is estimated in the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Supporting Statement for the DSW final rule.

To the extent that the DSW final rule exclusions may affect shifts in RCRA regulatory status from LQG to SQG status (which 

would result in a decrease of four RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements from 11 for LQGs to 7 for SQGs as shown in the bottom 

row of Exhibit 6A of this RIA), and from SQG to CESQG status (which would result in a decrease of one Subtitle C requirements 

from 7 for SQGs to 6 for CESQGs as shown in the bottom row of Exhibit 6A), such shifts may be expected to reduce future RCRA 

Subtitle C compliance assurance and enforcement for affected facilities (as estimated in Exhibit 6D), which will offset any increase in 

compliance assurance and enforcement for the DSW final rule exclusion.
129

· 11D-8. Potential Increase in Costs for Investigating and Stabilizing Abandoned Recycling Sites

OSW’s January 2007 recycling damage case database does not identify abandoned sites per se as causation of historical damages. 

However, the database does indicate 33% (i.e., 69) of the 208 cases involved abandoned materials as one of the five known causation 

categories (source: Exhibit 2 at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf), which represents an average 

annual occurrence of 2.9 abandoned materials cases per year (i.e., (69 abandonment cases)/ (24 years)). Materials abandonment 

constitutes the primary cause of damages for a smaller 14% (i.e., 30) of the 208 recycling damage cases (source: Exhibit 3, ibid). 

Based on the historical recycling damage case causation evaluation presented in Exhibit 11C above, the “abandoned materials” causal 

factor (i.e., row item 3 in Exhibit 11C) is addressed by all three DSW final rule exclusions, which suggests no expected change 

(increase) in this countervailing risk.

· 11D-9. Potential Reduction in Site Inspections May Lead to Future Increase in Sites Requiring 

Remediation

Although OSW has not verified this potential effect, it seems reasonable to assume that some hazardous wastes which become 

excluded under the DSW rule may be expected to shift to less-regulated (e.g., non RCRA-permitted) industrial recycling facilities, and 

thus possibly be subject to relatively less frequent annual environmental protection and regulatory enforcement site inspections. 

However, OSW designed the conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions to minimize any adverse environmental outcome from this 

type of possible change (i.e., reduction in relative number of annual site inspections) in regulatory oversight. These requirements 

include (a) legitimate recycling, (b) containerized materials, (c) no speculative accumulation, (d) management of residuals in 

environmentally protective manner, (e) site closure financial assurance, (f) generator due diligence oversight of offsite recyclers, (g) 

initial and annual notifications, and (h) offsite shipment recordkeeping.

· 11D-10. Potential Worker Fatality/Injury Risks from Inter-Industry Distributional Effects

In its 25 June 2007 written comments (ID nr. 2002-0031-0548) to OSW on the March 2007 DSW supplemental proposal, the Cement 

Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) wrote that:

“[T]he Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule has not appropriately considered the potential for and magnitude of 

the negative impact this rule will have on the beneficial recycling practice of recovering energy from secondary 

hazardous materials in cement kilns... EPA has ignored or underestimated the extent to which the proposed rule would 
130

encourage energy-bearing hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and 

towards other less-regulated forms of recycling... EPA’s DSW RIA correctly assumes that if cement plants are forced 

to reduce energy recovery they will meet their resulting increased energy needs with coal. However, the RIA does not 

address the additional adverse health and safety impacts that will result from the increased production, transportation 

and use of this additional coal... In [CKRC’s 1996 comments on another EPA rule], CKRC found that reducing the use 

of hazardous waste derived fuels and substituting coal would increase fatalities and injuries due to more coal mining 

accidents, lung cancer among miners, black lung diseases among miners, coal train accidents, and coal truck 

accidents”

Although this comment only identifies a potential worker fatality/injury countervailing risk involving a possible indirect distributional 

effect of the DSW final rule on the coal production industry (i.e., NAICS code 2121), there are other industries which may be directly

and indirectly affected by the DSW rule (as identified in Chapter 10 of this RIA) due to:

· Direct distributional effects: May arise from future shifts in secondary materials management between:

1. Decrease in business activity at commercial hazardous waste management industries (i.e., NAICS code 562)

2. Increase in business activity at secondary materials recovery/recycling industries (e.g., NAICS 331492 secondary

smelting of nonferrous metals).

· Indirect distributional effects: May occur from compensating changes in production of virgin industrial materials such as:

1. Decrease in virgin metals production (NAICS 331419 other nonferrous metal ore primary smelting & refining)

2. Decrease in virgin solvent production (NAICS 325199 all other basic organic chemical mfg)

3. Decrease in other virgin materials production (e.g., NAICS 325182 carbon black mfg)

4. Increase in coal production (NAICS 2121) to replace baseline hazardous wastes used as fuel for energy recovery which 

may switchover to materials recovery (e.g., solvent recovery) under the DSW final rule exclusions

One study28 of the historical trend in annual worker injuries and fatalities in the US coal mining industry indicates that worker injury 

and fatality rates have fluctuated annually in that industry, as measured and normalized in relation to annual work-hours. Exhibit 11D 

below displays counts of worker fatalities, injuries and illnesses for the coal mining industry and the other major industries potentially

affected directly and indirectly by the DSW rule, compared to the magnitude of the potential annual distributional effect estimated in 

Chapter 10 of this RIA (Exhibits 10B & 10C, respectively). This indicator reveals that the relative size of the potential distributional 

effect of the DSW rule is very small compared to the magnitude of work-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities in each industry

(2006). Furthermore, from a national perspective, potential small marginal business gains (i.e., potential increases in annual work 

hours) in industrial secondary materials recovery and coal mining industries, are expected to be offset to a large degree by potential 

small marginal business loses (i.e., potential reductions in annual work hours) for virgin materials production industries.

28 Source: Figure 4-1: Injury and Fatality Rates in US Coal Mines, 1931-1996 (p. 23) in “Productivity Change in US Coal Mining”, Joel Darmstadter, Resources 

for the Future, Discussion Paper 97-40, July 1997: http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-97-40.pdf.
131

Exhibit 11D

Comparison of Potential Annual Distributional Effects to Annual Work-Related Worker Injuries, Illnesses & Fatalities

in 23 Industries Potentially Directly & Indirectly Affected by the DSW Final Rule

A B C D E F G

Worker IIF Statistics (2006)

Item

NAICS

industry

codes Industry Identity Fatalities

Non-fatal 

illnesses

Non-fatal 

injuries

Annual 

distributional 

effect

1

2

3

331492

562211

562211

A. Hazardous waste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals)

H020 solvent recovery

H039 other materials recovery (carbon in this RIA)

Not avlble

5

5

<100

100

100

500

1,400\

1,400

-1.995%

-0.422%

-1.845%

4

5

6

7

562998

562998

562998

42393

B. Intermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution:

Waste & recycling brokerage

Waste & materials transfer (storage & consolidation)

Waste & materials sorting

Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution

Not avlble

Not avlble

Not avlble

15

<100

<100

<100

200

2,100

2,100

2,100

9,400

0%

0%

0%

0%

8 562112 C. Hazardous waste transportation services (trucking) Not avlble Not avlble Not avlbe -2.192%

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

21223

3241

325

327

493

561

562

D1. Hazardous waste beneficial disposal (H050 & H061 energy recovery):

Copper, lead, nickel & zinc mining

Petroleum & coal products mfg

Chemical mfg

Nonmetallic mineral product mfg (i.e., cement mfg kilns)

Warehousing & storage

Administrative support services

Waste management & remediation

5

9

32

59

17

294

77

<100

200

3,100

2,100

1,400

9,000

500

400

3,100

22,600

35,400

44,600

126,300

22,600

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%

16

17

18

562211

562211

562211

E2. Hazardous waste non-beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal

H134 deepwell injection disposal

H040, H071 to H131, H135 other non-beneficial disposal

5

5

5

100

100

100

1,400

1,400

1,400

-3.324%

0%

-0.096%

19 562212 E. Non-hazardous waste disposal (displaced by switchover to recycling) 8 100 3,900 +0.014%

20

21

22

331492

325199

325188

F. Virgin materials production (resources conserved by recycling switchover):

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals)

Virgin solvent production (all other basic organic chemical mfg)

Virgin other materials production (carbon black mfg)

Not avlble

3

3

<100

100

100

500

600

900

-0.156%

-0.001%

-0.0004%

23 2121 G. Coal mining (to replace recycling switchover loss of H050 & H061) 47 100 4,400 +0.0012%

Explanatory Notes:

· Columns D, E & F data source: US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics “Injuries, Illnesses & Fatalities” (IIF) database at http://www.bls.gov/iif

· Column G data source: Estimated potential percentage change in annual business revenues from Exhibits 10B & 10C of this RIA. Positive numbers (+) indicate 

potential business gain and negative numbers (-) indicate potential business loss. This percentage revenue change represents for purpose of this Exhibit an 

indicator of potential future change in annual work hours in each industry, compared to baseline annual work hours and IIF counts..
132

· 11D-11. Potential Increase in Risk That Current Commercial Recyclers May Fail in Bankruptcy From 

Increased Competition by Non-Regulated Recyclers

Although OSW has not verified this potential effect, it is reasonable to assume that some hazardous wastes which become excluded 

under the DSW final rule may be expected to shift to less-regulated (e.g., non RCRA-permitted) industrial recycling facilities, and thus 

possibly induce some business closures (e.g., bankruptcies) among commercial recyclers. This RIA estimates no potential future 

increase in business closures because the fraction of affected business activity as measured by average annual company revenues 

potentially lost (i.e., transferred to other industries) as a result of the DSW final rule, is relatively small in all affected industries, as 

estimated in Chapter 10 “Distributional Effects” of this RIA. For example, some current Subtitle C permitted hazardous waste 

recyclers may continue to manage the DSW-excluded secondary materials in other units of their same facilities after this rule is 

implemented, which would mitigate any potential future business loss for the commercial hazardous waste treatment industry.

· 11D-12. Potential Adverse Impacts on Functioning of Other Public Programs that Protect the 

Environment & Health

The Federal Register announcements for both the 2007 DSW supplemental proposal (Vol.72, No.57, 26 March 2007, Section XIII., 

pp.14205-14207), and for the DSW final rule, provide a description of the expected effects of this final rule on nine other 

governmental environmental and health programs:

1.RCRA solid waste exclusions found in 40 CFR 261.4(a): OSW does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk 

resulting from the DSW final rule because hazardous secondary materials that are currently excluded from the RCRA 

definition of solid waste in 40 CFR 261.4(a) with specific conditions, will be required to continue to meet those prior 

requirements. In addition, recycling of such hazardous secondary materials at new facilities, or at existing facilities that are not 

currently operating under the terms of an existing RCRA definition of solid waste exclusion, would also be subject to the 

existing applicable regulatory exclusion, rather than to the DSW final rule exclusions.

2. Spent lead-acid battery recycling: OSW does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW 

final rule because spent lead-acid batteries must continue to be managed according to (a) the requirements of the recycling 

exclusion found in 40 CFR 266 subpart G, or (b) the universal waste standards of 40 CFR part 273, or (c) full Subtitle C 

hazardous waste requirements (if disposed).

3. Other RCRA recycling exclusions: For other hazardous secondary materials currently eligible for management under other 

exclusions or alternative regulatory structures that do not include an exclusion from the RCRA definition of solid waste (such 
133

as the universal waste regulations in 40 CFR part 273), the facility would have the choice of either continuing to manage his 

hazardous secondary material as a hazardous waste under the existing RCRA regulations or under today’s exclusions from the 

definition of solid waste. Because the DSW final rule exclusions contain environmentally-protective conditions which may

equal or exceed the conditions of baseline (existing) RCRA Subtitle C exemptions, OSW does not expect an increase in this 

type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule. Furthermore, for those facilities that are currently excluded from 

boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations under 40 CFR 266.100 subpart H for “smelting, melting, and refining furnaces” 

and precious metals recovery furnaces, hazardous secondary materials burned for metals recovery would still be required to 

meet the minimum metals and maximum toxic organic metals content specified in 40 CFR 266 subpart H, because these 

conditions define when an operation involving combustion is a legitimate materials recovery operation, rather than burning for 

energy recovery or burning for destruction, which are not eligible for the DSW final rule exclusions.

4.RCRA-permitted TSDFs: Permitted facilities that continue to manage hazardous wastes in addition to managing hazardous 

secondary materials excluded under the DSW final rule must continue to maintain their RCRA permits. In addition, permit 

requirements applicable to newly excluded units will remain in effect until they are removed from the permit by submitting a 

permit modification request. On the other hand, a permitted facility that manages only hazardous secondary materials excluded 

under the DSW final rule and is, therefore, no longer a hazardous waste management facility, will no longer be required to 

maintain a RCRA hazardous waste operating permit, and will no longer be required to comply with the existing RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations governing permitted facilities. However, permits issued to these facilities remain in effect until 

they are terminated. To support a request for permit termination by modifying the permit term, the owner or operator must 

demonstrate that the operations meet the conditions of the exclusion, and that the facility does not manage non-excluded 

hazardous wastes. In addition, as was explained in the October 2003 proposal and in the March 2007 proposal, the obligation 

of 40 CFR 264.101 to address facility-wide corrective action at permitted facilities, which attaches at permit issuance, is not 

affected by this final rule and remains in effect until corrective action at the facility is completed. Therefore, an owner or 

operator of a facility that manages only hazardous secondary materials excluded under the DSW final rule seeking to terminate 

the facility’s permit by modifying the permit term must demonstrate as part of the permit modification request that corrective 

action obligations at the facility have been addressed. If facility-wide corrective action has not been addressed, the permit 

generally should not be terminated but, rather, modified to include only corrective action requirements. For these reasons, 

OSW does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.

5.RCRA interim status TSDFs: A facility that is operating under interim status will be affected by the DSW final rule in much the 

same way as a RCRA-permitted facility, and the issue of corrective action will be addressed in a similar manner. Thus, OSW 

does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.

6.Corrective action for releases from formerly RCRA-regulated units: To maintain a DSW final rule exclusion, owners and 

operators of facilities with excluded units must comply with the conditions of the exclusion, including the conditions of (a) 

containment of the hazardous secondary material in the unit and (b) the prohibition against speculative accumulation. In some 
134

cases, units that release materials may no longer meet the condition of containment and, if such releases are not promptly

addressed and containment at the unit is not promptly restored, the unit will no longer qualify for the exclusion provided under 

the DSW final rule. If a unit loses its exclusion, the unit itself, as well as materials in the unit, once again will become subject 

to all RCRA regulatory requirements that were applicable prior to the DSW final rule. In addition, releases from the unit that 

were not promptly addressed become discarded solid and hazardous wastes and are not excluded secondary materials under the 

DSW final rule. In other cases, a unit that currently meets the conditions and thereby qualifies for the exclusion provided in the 

DSW final rule, including the containment condition, may have unaddressed releases from earlier waste management activities 

at the now-excluded unit. This release material is discarded solid and hazardous waste and is not excluded material under the 

DS final rule. Thus, in both cases described above, the owner/operator retains the obligation to address releases from the unit 

through corrective action. For these reasons, OSW does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting 

from the DSW final rule.

7. Financial assurance obtained for closure at non-excluded RCRA-regulated units: Owners and operators of units eligible for the 

DSW final rule “Exclusion 2” and “Exclusion 3” would be required to remove and decontaminate all contaminated structures, 

equipment, and soils. The financial assurance provided under subpart H of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 was designed to assure 

that funds would be available for these activities. In the case of “Exclusion 1” where financial assurance is no longer required, 

previous releases from the unit, which would have been addressed during closure and for which financial assurance was 

obtained, will as a result of the DSW final rule, now be addressed through corrective action authority. For these reasons, OSW 

does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.

8.CERCLA & SREA: At least one commentor (2002-0031-0193) on the 2003 DSW RIA requested OSW to address the potential 

for the DSW rule to affect “arranger liability” under CERCLA section 107. OSW does not expect an increase in this type of 

countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule because in 1999, Congress enacted the Superfund Recycling Equity Act 

(SREA) which explicitly defined those hazardous substance recycling activities that potentially may be exempted from liability

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These exempted activities 

are listed in CERCLA section 127. The DSW final rule does not change the universe of recycling activities that could be 

exempted from CERCLA liability pursuant to CERCLA section 127. The DSW final rule only changes the RCRA definition 

of solid waste for purposes of RCRA Subtitle C requirements. The final rule also does not limit or otherwise affect USEPA’s 

ability to pursue potentially responsible persons under section 107 of CERCLA for releases or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances.

9. Hazardous secondary materials imports and exports: OSW does not expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk 

resulting from the DSW final rule for two reasons:

a. The DSW final rule exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generating facility

(“Exclusion 1” in this RIA) is limited to recycling performed in the United States or its territories, and

b. Although the transfer-based recycling exclusion (“Exclusion 2”) and the non-waste determination (“Exclusion 3”) 
135

included in the DSW final rule do not place any geographic restrictions on movements of hazardous secondary

materials, provided they meet the environmentally-protective conditions (i.e., description) of these two exclusions. It is 

therefore possible that in some cases excluded hazardous secondary materials could be generated in the United States or 

its territories and subsequently exported for reclamation to a facility in a foreign country or hazardous secondary

materials could be generated in a foreign country and imported for reclamation in the United States. Under the DSW 

final rule, the exclusion would only be effective while the hazardous secondary material is within the United States or 

its territories; excluded hazardous secondary materials may be subject to regulation as hazardous wastes in the receiving 

or (for imports) in the originating country, even if they are excluded from the definition of solid waste in the U.S. under 

RCRA. If this is the case, the U.S. facility who exports or imports hazardous secondary material will need to comply

with any applicable requirements of the subsequent foreign country.
136

Chapter 12

Sensitivity Analysis Factors

This chapter derives nine different sensitivity analysis factors which are applied in Chapter 1 (Exhibit 1D) of this RIA to the bottomline economic impact estimate of this RIA (from Chapter 9). The purpose of these factors is to illustrate in Exhibit 1D, the extent to 

which the annual industry net costs savings estimated in this RIA based on 2005 data year, may fluctuate year-to-year in the future 

after the DSW final rule is promulgated. These factors are not meant to be additive and some are sub-components in part or in whole 

of other factors (e.g., factors #3, #4 and #5 are sub-components of factor #2). To avoid duplication of information in this RIA, refer to 

Exhibit 1D for the results of how these sensitivity factors affect the industry cost savings estimate for the DSW final rule.

· Sensitivity Analysis #1: State Government Adoption Uncertainty

The bottom two rows of Exhibit 12A present two alternative average annual impacts according to two scenarios:

· All states adopt the respective voluntary exclusions (i.e., 100% state adoption), or

· Only some states adopt the exclusions; for this scenario potential non-adopting states are indicated in Exhibit 12A with 

shaded cells, based on OSW’s analysis of 26 state government comments submitted to the USEPA Docket in response to 

OSW’s 28 October 2003 proposed rule (note: state government and other public comments are available in Docket ID No. 

RCRA-2002-0031 at: http://www.regulation.gov). For Exclusion 1, four states indicated possible non-adoption, for 

exclusion 2, 12 states indicated possible non-adoption.

Exhibit 12A

Sensitivity Analysis #1:

State-by-State Net Cost Savings Impact and Possible Non-Adoption of DSW Final Rule

Item State

Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Recycling

Combined Net 

Impact (Exclusions 

1+2+3)

1 Alabama $1,004,543 $1,537,776 Not estimated on 

state-by-state basis

$2542319

2 Alaska $0 $421,673 Not Est. $421,673

3 Arizona $34,713 $1,384,478 Not Est. $1,418,191

4 Arkansas $48,262 $565,259 Not Est. $613,521

5 California $522,971 $12,381,199 Not Est. $12,904,170

6 Colorado $68,730 $786,136 Not Est. $854,866
137

Exhibit 12A

Sensitivity Analysis #1:

State-by-State Net Cost Savings Impact and Possible Non-Adoption of DSW Final Rule

Item State

Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Recycling

Combined Net 

Impact (Exclusions 

1+2+3)

7 Connecticut $16,352 $2,205,657 Not Est. $2,222,009

8 Delaware $32,448 $373,179 Not Est. $405,627

9 Dist. of Columbia $0 $58,045 Not Est. $58,045

10 Florida $201,310 $1,561,563 Not Est. $1,762,873

11 Georgia $218,686 $1,501,058 Not Est. $1,719,744

12 Guam $0 $26,783 Not Est. $26,783

13 Hawaii $0 $41,233 Not Est. $41,233

14 Idaho -$199 $264,881 Not Est. $264,682

15 Illinois $114,561 $2,915,222 Not Est. $3,029,783

16 Indiana $161,220 $2,746,457 Not Est. $2,907,678

17 Iowa $30,898 $1,182,695 Not Est. $1,213,593

18 Kansas $65,807 $1,147,841 Not Est. $1,213,648

19 Kentucky $165,735 $1,433,990 Not Est. $1,599,725

20 Louisiana $448,575 $1,387,431 Not Est. $1,836,006

21 Maine $32,407 $270,165 Not Est. $302,572

22 Maryland $7,932 $1,056,642 Not Est. $1,064,574

23 Massachusetts $69,911 $3,165,705 Not Est. $3,235,616

24 Michigan $124,142 $4,097,662 Not Est. $4,221,804

25 Minnesota $82,802 $2,396,032 Not Est. $2,478,833

26 Mississippi $71,345 $783,331 Not Est. $854,677

27 Missouri $103,661 $1,403,563 Not Est. $1,507,223

28 Montana $0 $149,534 Not Est. $149,534

29 Navajo Nation $0 $0 Not Est. $0

30 Nebraska $1,253 $601,498 Not Est. $602,752

31 Nevada $0 $283,817 Not Est. $283,817

32 New Hampshire* $0 $0 Not Est. $0

33 New Jersey $342,740 $3,091,261 Not Est. $3,434,002

34 New Mexico -$165 $284,489 Not Est. $284,323
138

Exhibit 12A

Sensitivity Analysis #1:

State-by-State Net Cost Savings Impact and Possible Non-Adoption of DSW Final Rule

Item State

Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Recycling

Combined Net 

Impact (Exclusions 

1+2+3)

35 New York $262,252 $4,012,324 Not Est. $4,274,576

36 North Carolina $164,477 $1,942,456 Not Est. $2,106,933

37 North Dakota $0 $129,194 Not Est. $129,194

38 Ohio $266,756 $5,379,702 Not Est. $5,646,457

39 Oklahoma $31,560 $1,115,910 Not Est. $1,147,470

40 Oregon $1,946 $1,445,313 Not Est. $1,447,259

41 Pennsylvania $455,698 $3,599,587 Not Est. $4,055,285

42 Puerto Rico $2,818 $838,106 Not Est. $840,925

43 Rhode Island $0 $912,193 Not Est. $912,193

44 South Carolina* $212 $564,002 Not Est. $564,213

45 South Dakota $15,778 $101,842 Not Est. $117,620

46 Tennessee $250,202 $1,391,441 Not Est. $1,641,643

47 Texas $807,676 $3,115,011 Not Est. $3,922,687

48 Trust Territories $0 $0 Not Est. $0

49 Utah $35,934 $535,389 Not Est. $571,323

50 Vermont $16,001 $385,040 Not Est. $401,041

51 Virgin Islands $0 $1,676 Not Est. $1,676

52 Virginia $146,285 $2,231,942 Not Est. $2,378,227

53 Washington $98,421 $2,047,162 Not Est. $2,145,583

54 West Virginia $55,517 $658,106 Not Est. $714,623

55 Wisconsin $215,956 $3,645,023 Not Est. $3,860,978

56 Wyoming $0 $53,539 Not Est. $53,539

Column Totals

If include all states = $6.8 million $87.3 million $1.3 million $95.3 million

Count of shaded cells (possible nonadoption) =

4 states 12 states Not estimated 12 states (nonduplicative count)

If exclude shaded cells = $5.4 million $66.9 million $1.3 million $73.6 million

% reduction in all states impact = -19.8% -23.3% Not Est. (0%) -23.0%
139

· Sensitivity Analysis #2: Future Annual Fluctuation in Affected Materials Quantities

Because this RIA is based on 2005 RCRA Biennial Report data, it is important to recognize the year-to-year variability (fluctuations) 

in hazardous waste generation and management tonnage as reported to the Biennial Report in prior data years (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 

1997, 1999, 2001, 2003; prior years are at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm), as an indicator of

the extent to which future year tonnages may also fluctuate. In particular, year-to-year fluctuations in the tonnages of hazardous waste 

recycling and hazardous waste disposal affected by the DSW final rule exclusions --- which would otherwise be RCRA-regulated in 

absence of this final rule --- implies that the actual impacts of the DSW final rule will fluctuate in future years, compared to the 

estimates presented in this RIA based on the 2005 single-year data snapshot.

For purpose of illustrating the potential magnitude of future annual fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages, Exhibits 12B 

and 12C present 1997-2005 historical time-trend data for annual facility counts and annual hazardous waste quantities (tons/year) 

recycled (Exhibit 12B) and disposed (Exhibit 12C). This retrospective is truncated at 1997 rather than extending to 1991 because the 

RCRA Biennial Report methodology discontinued collection of industrial wastewater data after 1995, so that data years 1995 and 

before which include both wastewater and non-wastewater data (i.e., sludge, solids, gases), are inconsistent with the 1997 to 2005 data

years which exclude wastewater data. The data in the Exhibits below are from OSW’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report 

“National Analysis” reports.29 Exhibits 12B and 12C provide annual percentage deviations for two time-trend metrics (i.e., annual 

facility counts and annual tonnages), relative to the annual average values for the 1997-2005 historical period. The 1997-2005

hazardous waste data trends show that:

· Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (from Exhibit 12B):

o -57% to +45% by annual recycler facility count

o -41% to +39% by annual tonnage recycled

· Baseline hazardous waste disposal has varied (from Exhibit 12C):

o -24% to +28% by annual disposal facility count

o -19% to +19% by annual tonnage disposed.

Based on the minimum and maximum annual deviation percentages over these four deviation ranges, the national impacts of the DSW 

rule could range from -57% to +45% on any given future year, compared to the average annualized impact estimates presented in this 

RIA. This range is not a statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in percentage variation 

between 1997-2005 annual counts of industrial facilities which reported recycling RCRA hazardous wastes to the RCRA Biennial 

Report, compared to the average count over that 9-year period. The purpose of this time-trend deviation computation is to provide an 

aggregate indicator of how national waste quantities fluctuate year-to-year.

29 http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm
140

There are at least four reasons for annual fluctuations in the quantity of hazardous wastes reported as disposed and recycled. 

One reason is within-year discrepancies between generation tonnage and management tonnage, which is addressed as Sensitivity

Analysis #3 in this RIA. A second reason is the economic level of industrial activity in any given year which is addressed by

Sensitivity Analysis #4 of this RIA. A third reason is data over-reporting to the Biennial Report by LQGs and TSDRFs involving 

reporting of non-required data for state-regulated hazardous wastes, which is addressed by Sensitivity Analysis #5 of this RIA. A 

fourth reason -- although not in itself quantified as a separate factor in this chapter -- is that OSW may add or subtract industrial 

secondary materials to the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program, such that in any given year, the number and types of wastes 

covered by the RCRA program may vary from OSW or RCRA-authorized state government environmental agencies:

· Adding new waste streams to the program using the 40 CFR 261.11 “listing” procedure.

· Removing waste streams from RCRA regulation using the 40 CFR 260.22 “delisting” procedure.

Such changes may influence the types of industries, industrial facilities, and hazardous wastes that may be affected in any future year 

by the DSW rulemaking. USEPA publishes in the Federal Register its Regulatory Agenda twice per year. USEPA’s Fall 2007

Regulatory Agenda published on 10 Dec 2007, lists 31 planned actions for OSWER --- consisting of 9 planned proposed rules, 8 

planned final rules, 11 planned long-term actions, plus 3 recently completed actions --- of which 15 may affect (i.e., increase or 

decrease) future annual waste quantities managed under the RCRA hazardous waste program for certain industries and waste types.

30

30 Source: USEPA Fall 2007 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda: Part Two - Regulatory Agenda; the 31 OSWER actions are listed on pages 14 

& 15; http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook-fall07-pt2.pdf. The 15 RCRA-related actions in the Fall 2007 regulatory agenda consist of:

1. Revisions to LDR standards for K171/K172 wastes; changes to encourage recycling of K171/K172

2. Revisions to RCRA financial test criteria

3. Revisions to export requirements for hazardous wastes destined for recovery in OECD countries and for spent lead-acid batteries

4. Addition of hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the universal waste program

5. RCRA incentives for Performance Track members

6. Standards for Subtitle D management of utility coal combustion wastes

7. RCRA smarter waste reporting (formerly Reduction of RCRA reporting and recordkeeping burden, Phase II)

8. Exclusion for residues from petroleum refineries recycled in gasification units

9. Regulation of solvent-contaminated rags and wipers

10. Management of cement kiln dust

11. Revisions to F019 listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum automobile bodies

12. Revisions to the definition of solid waste

13. Expanding the RCRA comparable fuels exclusion

14. Standards and procedures for electronic hazardous waste manifests

15. Streamlining hazardous waste management in academic laboratories
141

Exhibit 12B

Sensitivity Analysis #2:

9-Year Time-Trend (1997-2005) Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling (Onsite + Offsite)

A B C D E F G (A+C+E) H (B+D+F)

Metals Recovery*

(M011 to M019, or H010)

Solvent Recovery*

(M021 to M029, or H020)

Other Recovery**

(M031 to M039, or H039)

Row Total Recovery**

Data (%s represent deviations from average)

Item Year Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities*** Million tons

1 1997 96 1.078 154 0.617 52 0.443 302 (-47%) 2.138 (+2%)

2 1999 88 0.720 111 0.368 46 0.152 245 (-57%) 1.240 (-41%)

3 2001 191 1.462 534 0.425 97 1.026 822 (+45%) 2.913 (+39%)

4 2003 159 1.152 523 0.263 85 0.729 767 (+35%) 2.144 (+2%)

5 2005 137 1.420 493 0.297 74 0.328 704 (+24%) 2.045 (-2%)

9-year average = 568 2.096

Deviation range = -57% to +45% -41% to +39%

Explanatory Notes:

(1) Data source: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

(2) * USEPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” changed in 2001 from M-codes to H-codes.

(3) ** “Other Recovery” in this exhibit excludes (1) energy recovery and (2) fuel blending because they are not eligible for the DSW final rule exclusions.

(4) *** Facility row total counts overstate actual counts because row totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more recycling methods.

Exhibit 12C

Sensitivity Analysis #2 (cont’d):

9-Year Time-Trend (1997-2005) Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Disposal (Onsite + Offsite)

A B C D E F G (A+C+E) H (B+D+F)

Landfill or Surface Impoundment 

Disposal (M132 & M133, or H132)*

Incineration Disposal

(M041 to M049, or H040)

Other Disposal**

(M131, or H131)

Row Total Disposal

Data (%s represent deviations from avg)

Item Year Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities  Million tons Facilities** * Million tons

1 1997 72 2.539 166 1.656 104 26.452 342 (-14%) 30.647 (+19%)

2 1999 62 2.115 149 1.454 92 17.473 303 (-24%) 21.042 (-19%)

3 2001 69 2.090 174 1.646 268 24.177 511 (+28%) 27.913 (+8%)

4 2003 72 1.676 162 1.273 184 17.856 418 (+5%) 20.805 (-19%)

5 2005 68 2.038 164 1.438 184 25.284 416 (+5%) 28.760 (+11%)

9-year average = 398 25.833

Deviation range = -24% to +28% -19% to +19%

Explanatory Notes:

(1) Data source: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

(2) * USEPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” changed in 2001 from M-codes to H-codes.

(3) ** “Other Disposal” includes (1) other disposal, (2) deepwell injection, (3) land application.

(4) *** Facility counts for “Other Disposal” overstate actual counts because totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more disposal methods.
142

· Sensitivity Analysis #3: Within-Year Discrepancy Between Generation & Management Tons

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity Analysis #2. For any single data year, the total tons of 

hazardous wastes reported as “generated” in the RCRA Biennial Report by LQGs does not match the total tons of hazardous wastes 

reported as “managed” by TSDRFs. This discrepancy may to a large degree result from the fact that typically 17% to 24% of 

hazardous wastes generated in recent years (1997-2005) are reported as transported (i.e., shipped) either (1) to another industrial unit 

with a separate USEPA ID number within the same LQG facility or (2) offsite for management at a TSDRF, rather than managed 

onsite by the LQG. Because the economic impacts estimated in this RIA are proportional to the annual tonnage of affected materials, 

this within-year discrepancy suggests that the estimated net cost savings in this RIA based on 2005 BR data, could be between -34% 

to +39% for any future year. This range is not a statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range 

in percentage variation between 1997-2005 generation quantities of RCRA hazardous wastes compared to the within-year management 

quantities reported to the Biennial Report over that 9-year period as displayed in Exhibit 12D below.

Exhibit 12D

Sensitivity Analysis #3

9-Year Time Trend (1997-2005) in Hazardous Waste Generation & Management Tonnages

Indicator 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

1. Million tons generated 40.7 40.0 40.8 30.2 38.3

2. Million tons managed 37.7 26.3 45.4 42.1 43.9

Percent discrepancy indicated by ratio of tons 

managed:to:generated ((2-1) / 1) -7.4% -34.3% +11.3% +39.4% +14.6%

Explanatory Notes:

Data source: RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm.

· Sensitivity Analysis #4: Fluctuation in Future Annual US Industrial Economic Conditions

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity Analysis #2. This RIA is built upon a single year 2005 snap 

shot of potentially affected industries, facilities, and hazardous waste tonnage; it does not include a future projection. Future year 

impacts are likely to fluctuate because future year counts of industries, facilities and materials quantities fluctuate with changing 

macro-economic conditions. For example, one of the top-10 potentially impacted industries --- NAICS 32411 petroleum refining --- is 

expected to grow +5.6% annually in the US through year 2010 (source: The Freedonia Group, Cleveland OH, “Refinery Chemicals: 

Industry Study with Forecasts to 2005 & 2010”, Study #2065, June 2006, 214 pages, at: 

http://www.freedoniagroup.com/pdf/2065smwe.pdf).
143

· Sensitivity Analysis #5: Data Quality Assurance

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity Analysis #2. For any given data reporting year, some LQG and 

TSDRF data records in the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) may be inaccurately or incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) included in the 

Biennial Report database for at least three reasons:

1. Misreporting of data

2. State regulatory reporting requirements for hazardous waste data are in excess of Federal RCRA requirements in some states:

a. Some states require SQGs and CESQGs to report hazardous waste generation data

b. Some states require LQGs to report state-regulated waste data, in addition to Federal-regulated waste data

3. As listed earlier in this RIA, there are 16 existing exclusions from the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, but it appears that the 

Biennial Report may incorrectly contain data from some facilities for wastes that are already excluded.

Including any such misreported and state waste data in the baseline dataset used for this RIA could result in errors in impact 

estimation. However, two factors mitigate these potential sources of inaccuracy: (a) state governments are required to subject Biennial 

Report data to quality assurance prior to submitting it to the USEPA for aggregation into the Biennial Report database, and (b) the 

Biennial Report database has a data element which is intended to distinguish between “Federal regulated hazardous wastes” and “state 

government regulated hazardous wastes”. Furthermore, with respect to state-regulated data included in the Biennial Report, this RIA 

only included Federal data from the Biennial Report for impact estimation.

Otherwise, the purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to provide a quality assurance factor in this RIA, by illustrating the degree 

to which data quality questions may affect the impact estimates. Exhibit 12E below identifies 6 of the 16 existing DSW exclusions for 

which data may have been incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) reported by LQGs or TSDFs to the 2005 Biennial Report (BR). OSW’s 

2003 RIA (p.3-12) identified three of these six categories (i.e., oil, recovery, by-products, sludges), and the 2007 RIA (Exhibit 1A) 

identified four of these categories, based on QA/QC random visual inspection of waste descriptions supplied by the LQGs (Form GM, 

Section 1A) and TSDRFs (Form WR, Section A) reporting to the Biennial Report database applied in the prior RIAs. Two additional 

categories were identified from QA/QC random visual inspection of th 2005 dataset applied in this RIA. The percentage displayed at 

the bottom of Column D of Exhibit 12E may be interpreted as a rough approximation of the possible over-estimation of economic 

impacts in this RIA, as a result of this data quality assurance sensitivity factor.
144

Exhibit 12E

Sensitivity Analysis #5:

Six Industrial Secondary Materials Already-Excluded from the DSW Which May be Incorrectly in RIA Baseline Recycling Data

A B C D

Type of Excluded 

Material Description Biennial Report Data Code to Identify the Excluded Material

2005 Generation

(million tons)

1. Oil Recovery Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for oil recovery in the petroleum 

refining industry under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(ii). This exclusion 

requires materials be “inserted into the petroleum refining process”; 

this RIA assumes facilities reporting this to the BR do not meet this 

condition and are included in the dataset for this RIA.

· SIC code 2911 (petroleum refinery; same as NAICS 

code 32411) and

· W206 waste oil

0

2. Recycled Byproducts 

Exhibiting 

Characteristic of 

Hazardous Waste

Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for “by-products” exhibiting a 

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when 

reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

· D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

· D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or

· D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

· D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

· G07 source code “Product & by-product processing”

221,242*

3. Recycled 

Sludge Exhibiting 

Characteristic of 

Hazardous Waste

Reported wastes quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for “sludges” exhibiting a 

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when 

reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

· D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

· D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or

· D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

· D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

· W5xx or W6xx sludges physical form code

5,906

4. Recycled 

Commercial 

Chemical Products

Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for “commercial chemical 

products” when reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

· G11 source code “Discarding off-spec or out-of-date 

chemicals or products: unused chemicals or products –

corresponds to P and U hazardous waste codes”)

55,665

5. Oil refining 

spent acids

Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may be already excluded 

from the DSW if reclaimed under either 40 CFR 261.4(a)(7) or 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(12).

· D002 (corrosivity characteristic) and

· SIC code 2911 petroleum refinery (same as NAICS 

code 32411).

2,915

6. Oil bearing 

petrochemical 

wastes

Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may be already excluded 

from the DSW if reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(18) if “inserted 

into the petroleum refining process (SIC coded 2911) along with 

normal petroleum refinery process streams”

· D001 (ignitable characteristic) or

· D018 (benzene toxicity characteristic) and

· SIC 2865 “Cyclic Organic Crudes, Intermediates & 

Organic Dyes/Pigments, or SIC 2869 Industrial Organic 

Chemicals (both SIC codes are same as NAICS 32511 

petrochemical mfg)

58

Column total = 285,797

Percentage of 2005 National Biennial Report total hazardous waste generation = -0.7%

* One waste stream accounts for 171,748 tons with the waste description “spent lead/acid batteries and lead bearing scrap dismembered for metals recovery and recycling.”
145

· Sensitivity Analysis #6: Indirect Inclusion of RCRA SQGs in this RIA

Small quantity generators generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, whereas large quantity generators 

(LQGs) generate more than 1,000 kilograms per month. Because the impact estimates of this RIA are built upon the RCRA Biennial 

Report which contains data reported by LQGs and TSDFs but not by SQGs, the complete SQG facility univers count is not included in 

this RIA, only the small fraction of TSDFs which are also SQGs. To the extent that the DSW final rule de-regulatory impacts correlate 

to tonnage as variable cost impacts, ven though SQG annual waste tonnages are not directly reported by SQGs to the RCRA Biennial 

Report, most if not all, of their annual tonnage waste generation is reflected in the TSDF management tonnages reported because 

SQGs almost solely send their waste offsite to TSDFs. Thus the components of de-regulatory cost savings which are variable 

according to tonnage is indirectly captured in this RIA. However, because some components of expected de-regulatory cost savings 

are fixed on a per-facility basis, rather than variable according to t per-tonnage basis, the net cost savings impact estimated in this RIA 

is likely under-estimated by the following percentage range:

· Between 1993 and 2005, there was a low estimate of 84,000 SQGs (1993) to a high estimate of 236,000 SQGs (Source: page 4 

of “Work Assignment 7 Task 5 Quick Response Task 1 Memorandum: Study of Impact of Imposing Part 262 Manifest 

Requirements on Generators of HWIR-Exited Waste”, prepared 01 Feb 1999 by Dynamac Corp for OSW).

Step 1: Apply the same 30% ratio of LQGs managing wastes by recovery/recycling (source: 4,809 recycling LQGs from 

Exhibit 4A Column A divided by 16,191 total LQGs from Exhibit 4B Column A), to these SQG counts suggest that 

24,950 to 70,100 SQGs generate hazardous wastes which are managed by recovery/recycling.

Step 2: Subtract the 942 SQGs included in this RIA (Exhibit 6D Column D) produces a range of about 24,000 to 69,200 

SQGs omitted from this RIA.

Step 3: Calculate the percent of SQGs which may drop to CESQG status under the DSW final rule (based on Exhibit 6D):

(1,385 post-rule SQGs – 1,107 LQGs which drop to SQG status post-rule) = 278 of the pre-rule SQGs remain SQGs 

post-rule (from columns H & I of Exhibit 6D).

(942 pre-rule SQGs– 278) = 664 SQGs drop to CESQG status (from column D of Exhibit 6D).

(664/942) = 70% of SQGs drop to CESQG status

Step 4: Assume 70% of the Step 3 SQG count range of 24,000 to 69,200 omitted SQGs become excluded from RCRA 

regulation by the DSW final rule and multiply the 24,000 to 69,200 SQGs by the $1,744 SQG per-facility average 

annual cost for RCRA paperwork burden (from Exhibit 6B Column E), which may be eliminated from SQGs 

involved in recycling/recovery = $29.3 million to $84.5 million per year additional industry cost savings.

Step 5: Compare to the net impact estimate to establish percentage range for this sensitivity analysis factor:

($29.3 million to $84.5 million per year) / ($95.3 million/year) = +31% to +89% additional cost saving impact.
146

· Sensitivity Analysis #7: Physical/Chemical Quality of Secondary Materials for Viable 

Recovery/Recycling

The methodology applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA for identifying baseline disposal wastes for potential switchover to recycling under 

the DSW final rule, may have been overly broad (i.e., overly inclusive) in the physical/chemical types and industrial sources identified.

Exhibit 12F below identifies nine categories of baseline disposed wastes that may not be suitable for recycling, and their 

corresponding tonnages in the 2005 Biennial Report, as an indicator of potential industry cost savings over-estimation in this RIA from 

possible over-estimation of the baseline disposal tonnage with may switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule.

Exhibit 12F

Sensitivity Analysis #7

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes

2005 

Generation

(tons)

1. Probably better suited 

for energy recovery or use 

as fuel (e.g., oily wastes, 

tarry wastes, PAHs, heavy 

ends, petroleum refining 

wastes)

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W205 oil-water emulsion

· W206 waste oil

· W403 solid resins, plastics or 

polymerized organics

· W409 other organic solids

· W603 oily sludge

· W604 paint or ink sludges, 

still bottoms in sludge form

· W606 other organic sludge

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61, or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· F024heavy end, tars reactor clean-out process wastes

· F032, F034 chlorophenolic & creosote wood 

preservative wastewaters

· F037, F038 petroleum refinery oil/water separation 

sludge

· K001 wood preserving bottom sediment sludges

· K018, K030, K035, K042, K048, K049, K050, K051, 

K052, K087, K096, K101, K107, K108, K115 heavy 

ends, overheads

· K141, K142, K143, K144, K147, K148 coking 

operation tars

· K169, K170 oil tank sediment

1,024,341

2. Likely contains acutely 

toxic (dioxans/furans) or 

mutiple mixed hazardous 

constituents

For wastes with no 

reported form codes 

include source code:

· G26 leachate 

collection

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· F020, F021, F022, F023 listed for dioxins/furans

· F026, F027, F028, F032 listed for dioxins/furans

· F039 land disposal leachate

19,508
147

Exhibit 12F

Sensitivity Analysis #7

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes

2005 

Generation

(tons)

· K032, K033, K034 listed for carcinogen 

hexachlorocyclopentadiene

· K174 listed for dioxins/furans

· P001 to P205 (i.e., all Pxxx) acutely hazardous 

discarded or off-spec commercial chemical products, 

container residues

3. Explosive or reactive 

material

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W210 reactive or 

polymerizable organic 

liquids and adhesives

· W405 explosives or reactive 

organic solids

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· K044, K045, K046, K047 explosives mfg wastewaters, 

sludge, spent carbon

98,300

4a. 

Distillation 

residuals (may 

be better 

suited for 

energy 

recovery)

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W200 still bottoms in liquid 

form

For wastes with no 

reported form codes 

include source code:

· G24 solvent or 

product distillation 

or recovery

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· K009, K010, K015, K016, K019, K020, K022, K023, 

K024, K025, K026, K027, K036, K083, K085, K093, 

K094, K095, K116, K136, K149 chemical mfg 

product distillation bottoms or solvent recovery 

residues

4. 95,140

Already 

subject 

to 

recovery/ 

recycling

4b. Acid 

recovery 

residuals

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· K150 hydrochloric acid recovery residuals

0

5. Material unlikely to 

contain recoverable 

constituents of recycling 

value

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W301 contaminated soil

· W512 sediment or lagoon 

dragout, drilling or other 

muds

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· F028residues from incineration of contaminated soil

· K060 ammonia still lime sludge

· K102 residue from use of activated carbon for 

decolorization

437,048
148

Exhibit 12F

Sensitivity Analysis #7

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes

2005 

Generation

(tons)

6. Materials not eligible 

for DSW final rule 

exclusions*

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W309 (lead-acid batteries)

· W320 electrical devices 

(lamps, thermostats, CRTs)

257,948

7. Materials not currently 

widely recovered/ 

recycled**

· W401 used or discarded 

pesticide solids

· W503 gypsum sludges

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

· D004 arsenic

8,552

8. Materials unlikely to be 

economically recovered 

off site***

For wastes not reporting source 

code G61 include:

· W103 spent concentrated 

acid >5%

· W110 caustic aqueous waste 

without cysnides

For wastes with no 

form code include 

source codes:

· G02 stripping & 

acid or caustic 

cleaning

· G05 metal forming

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source 

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 include RCRA 

waste codes:

· K031, K043, K097, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, 

K131, K132 pesticide mfg wastewaters, sludges, 

absorbents, solids

· K062 iron & steel spent pickle liquor

6,068,617

9. Mixture of RCRA 

Waste Codes

Wastes that have multiple RCRA waste codes reported and 

the fall under more than one of the first seven categories.

143

Column total = 8,009,597

Percentage of 2005 National Biennial Report total hazardous waste generation (38.347 million tons, Exhibit 4A) = -21%

Explanatory Notes:

Some materials identified in this exhibit may contain potential beneficial re-use market value (e.g., construction fill, soil amendments, cement additives) which is not covered 

under the DSW final rule exclusions, and therefore not included in this RIA for evaluation of potential switchover from baseline disposal to future recycling.

* Or which may be managed as excluded materials under other RCRA exemptions (e.g., as “universal wastes”).

** As determined by comparison with the physical/chemical types or constituent s of RCRA hazardous wastes currently being recovered/ recycled according to H010, H020, or 

H039 management method codes in the 2005 Biennial Report.

*** Note that these data were initially pulled from the 2005 BR under Commodity Group #3 in Exhibit 5F. Upon review of W103 spent concentrated acids > 5%, G02 stripping 

and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste is not suitable for switchover to off-site other recovery. Much of the waste 

are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on-site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep-well 

injection. These disposal methods are cheap compared to offsite recovery. It will not be more economical to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. It is beyond the time 

and resource constraints of this RIA to individually carry these records through the analysis. A small quantity (< 4,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062) was identified. The 

quantity is too small to carry forward through the analysis.
149

· Sensitivity Analysis #8: Expected Accuracy of Impact Estimates

This RIA is based on a semi-detailed cost data designed to provide semi-detailed estimates rather than exact engineering cost and 

benefit estimates for each of the almost 300 different industries (Exhibit 9C) consisting of about 5,600 of facilities (Exhibit 9B) which 

are generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste streams (Exhibit 9A) which may be affected by the DSW rule. For purpose 

of classifying relative degrees of estimation accuracy, the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines five 

generic classes of cost estimation accuracy for application in engineering, procurement, and industry.31 AACE defined these classes 

in relation to ANSI standards Z94.0 and Z94.2.32 In the context of this RIA, the purpose of estimation accuracy classification is to 

indicate the relative degree to which the “ex-post” (i.e., post-rule) actual economic impacts for the DSW rule may vary from the “exante” (i.e., pre-rule) impacts estimated in this RIA. The AACE classification scheme expresses five levels of estimation accuracy

according to a +/- percentage range around the point estimate. The five accuracy classes are formulated to reflect varying, relative 

degrees of:

· Project definition, design, and planning maturity level (e.g, <2% vs >50% complete),

· End usage purpose of cost estimates (e.g., initial concept screening vs contract bid),

· Type of estimation methodology (e.g., judgment vs detailed unit costs), and

· Estimate preparation level-of-effort (e.g., <200 hours vs >1,000 hours to prepare).

The five accuracy classifications range from -50% :to:+100% for Class 5 “order-of-magnitude” type estimates, to -10% to +15% Class 

1 “definitive estimates”. Basically, as the level-of-detail and level-of-effort given to a cost (or cost savings) estimate increases, the 

expected accuracy of the estimate tends to improve, as indicated by a tighter +/- accuracy range assigned to it according to the accuracy

classification scheme. The impact estimates of this RIA may be classified as a “Class 3” semi-detailed type of estimate with expected 

accuracy range of -20% to +30%, because this RIA includes semi-detailed unit costs, but which are less than the thousands of highly

detailed unit costs and other details that typify a "Class 2" type estimate with -15% to +20% expected accuracy range.

31 Source: AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97 “Cost Estimate Classification System” , 12 Aug 1997, and Recommended Practice No. 18R97 “Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries”, 15 June 1998; 

http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml.

32 ANSI = American National Standards Institute. ANSI standard Z94.0 was originally published in 1972, then revised as Z94-1983 in 1983, revised as Z94.0-

1989 in 1990, and revised again as Z94.2 in 1998. The ANSI Z94.2 standard is one element of the set of 17 standards (i.e., Z94.1 to Z94.17) are for the field of 

industrial engineering, which is concerned with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of people, materials, information, equipment, and 

energy. Industrial engineering draws upon specialized knowledge and skill in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the principles and 

methods of engineering analysis and design, to specify, predict and evaluate the results obtained from such systems. Additional background information about 

ANSI Z94 standards is available from the Institute for Industrial Engineers at: http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=2644.
150

· Sensitivity Analysis #9: Future Change in Market Price of Recovered Commodities

The Chapter 8 micro-economic (i.e., facility-by-facility level) breakeven test of this RIA which estimates potential switchover of 

baseline hazardous waste disposal to recycling, utilizes the market price of recoverable commodities in the breakeven calculation. The 

purpose of this sensitivity factor is to illustrate how the overall industry cost savings estimate of this RIA (i.e., average annual industry

cost savings), may fluctuate in any given future year according to fluctuations in the price of the recoverable commodities. Exhibit 

12G below displays the 28 market price data points utilized in the breakeven test (from Appendix A of this RIA), and alternative 

prices representing a +/-50% fluctuation range. A relatively large +/-50% illustrative range is applied rather than a relatively smaller 

deviation (e.g., +/-10%) particularly to acknowledge relatively large fluctuations in commodity metals prices in recent years.33

Exhibit 12G

Sensitivity Analysis #9:

Change in Future Market Price of Commodities Recovered from Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling

A B C D (C x 50%) E (C x 150%)

Item Commodity Type

Baseline price

@90% market 

price ($/ton)

-50%

future change

(@90% price)

+50%

future change

(@90% price)

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A. Metal Containing Liquids

1 Copper $5,778 $2,889 $8,667

2 Lead $2,124 $1,062 $3,186

3 Zinc $1,908 $954 $2,862

4 Metal Cont. Liquids Weighted Average $2,063 $1,032 $3,094

1B. Metal Containing Solids

5 Copper $5,778 $2,889 $8,667

6 Lead $2,124 $1,062 $3,186

7 Zinc $1,908 $954 $2,862

8 Metal Cont. Solids Weighted Average $2,072 $1,036 $3,108

1C. Metal Containing Sludges

9 Chromium $2,412 $1,206 $3,618

10 Copper $5,778 $2,889 $8,667

11 Nickel $22,644 $11,322 $33,966

12 Zinc $1,908 $954 $2,862

13 Metal Cont. Sludges Weighted Average $9,413 $4,706 $14,120

1D. Emission Control Dust (K061)

14 Zinc $1,908 $954 $2,862

33 Since 2003, the US dollar price of copper has increased fivefold, for zinc fourfold, and for lead sevenfold. Source: “Growth in Base Metal Prices Set to 

Continue”, Gill Montia, Metal Markets, Brite Media, 23 July 2007; http://www.metalmarkets.org.uk/2007/07/23/growth-in-base-metal-prices-set-to-continue/
151

Exhibit 12G

Sensitivity Analysis #9:

Change in Future Market Price of Commodities Recovered from Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling

A B C D (C x 50%) E (C x 150%)

Item Commodity Type

Baseline price

@90% market 

price ($/ton)

-50%

future change

(@90% price)

+50%

future change

(@90% price)

1E. Molybdenum Disulfide Catalyst

15 Molybdenum disulfide $39,051 $19,526 $58,576

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A. Solvent Bearing Liquids (1)

16 Alkyl Benzenes $911 $456 $1,366

17 C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes $911 $456 $1,366

18 Toluene $900 $450 $1,350

19 Xylene $923 $462 $1,384

20 Methanol $442 $221 $663

21 Solvent Bearing Liquids Weighted Average $845 $422 $1,268

2B. Other Organic Liquids

22 Acetone $756 $378 $1,134

23 MEK $1,152 $576 $1,728

24 Toluene $900 $450 $1,350

25 Xylene $923 $462 $1,384

26 Other Organic Liquids Weighted Average $909 $454 $1,364

Commodity Group #3: Other

27 Carbon $4,289 $2,144 $6,434

28 Acids $46 $23 $69

Explanatory Notes:

(a) Source for Columns B & C: Appendix A of this RIA.

(b) This RIA assumes that recoverable materials from baseline disposed hazardous wastes may on average capture 90% of market price 

because of perceived or real lower quality relative to virgin materials.

· Sensitivity Analysis #10: Omission of Baseline Disposal Switchover to Same-Company Shared 

Offsite Recycling Under Exclusion 1

An indicator of the potential magnitude of this omission is the ratio of single- and multi-establishment firms in the “Establishment & 

Firm Size” industry subject series reports published by the Bureau of Census. Although such report is not available for the US 

manufacturing sector (NAICS 32 & 33) which represents eight of the top-10 4-digit NAICS code industries generating RCRA 

hazardous waste in 2005 (accounting for 32.45 million tons/year (85%) of the 38.35 million tons/year generation reported in the 2005 
152

Biennial Report (BR) for all industries), there is a 2002 report34 for the NAICS 562 “Waste Management & Remediation Services” 

industry group which represents the 4th and 10th industries in the 2005 top-10 generator industries (accounting for 2.13 million 

tons/year (6%) of the 38.35 million tons/year hazardous waste reported generated by all industries in the 2005 BR).

For NAICS 562 in year 2002, only 4% of the 15,084 firms (companies) operated more than one establishment (facility). 

However, this small 4% of multi-facility companies operated 22% of the 18,662 total facilities, and accounted for a large 66% share of 

the $51.3 billion annual business receipts. To the extent that the quantity of annual hazardous waste generation for any single facility

correlates to a large degree with the dollar magnitude of annual business receipts for that facility, this indicates that the omission from 

this RIA of shared within-company offsite recycling facilities may be a relatively large source of industry cost savings impact underestimation in this RIA for Exclusion 1. To estimate the potential magnitude of this impact under-estimation, the four numerical factors 

in combination yield an sensitivity analysis range which is calculated below:

· Four Numerical Factors for Calculating a sensitivity analysis uncertainty range:

1. The two multi-facility company percentages (i.e., 22% and 66%) cited above for NAICSS 562;

2. The 76% to 97% baseline disposal physical/chemical waste form low-quality constraint described in Chapter 5 (Section 

5B) of this RIA;

3. The 2.062 million tons un-impacted baseline disposal tons evaluated in this RIA for breakeven switchover to offsite (i.e., 

(2.085 million baseline disposal tons from Exhibit 5G) – (0.023 million tons impacted baseline disposal from Exhibit 8A) 

= 2.062 million tons);

4. The $16.7 million/year estimated net cost savings associated with the 23,413 tons estimated baseline switchover to 

recycling (from Exhibit 9F, Column H), produces the following impact under-estimation range:

· Lower-Bound: If based on 22% same-company facilities and omit 97% low-quality disposal tonnage:

Step 1: (2.062 million tons/year total baseline disposal evaluated for switchover to recycling) x (100%–97% sufficient 

quality) x (22% same-company) = 0.014 million tons/year additional switchover

Step 2: (0.014 million tons) / (0.023 million tons/year baseline disposal switchover to recycling) x ($16.7 million net 

benefits) = $9.7 million/year cost savings under-estimation

Step 3: ($9.7 million under-estimation) / ($95.3 million/year impact for this RIA) = 10% under-estimation

· Upper-Bound: If based on 66% same-company revenues and omit 76% low-quality disposal tonnage:

Step 1: (2.062 million tons/year total baseline disposal evaluated for switchover to recycling) x (100%–76% sufficient 

quality) x (66% same-company) = 0.327 million tons/year additional switchover

Step 2: (0.327 million tons) / (0.023 million tons/year baseline disposal switchover to recycling) x ($16.7 million net 

benefits) = $237 million/year cost savings under-estimation

Step 3: ($237 million under-estimation) / ($95.3 million/year impact for this RIA) = 249% under-estimation

34 Establishment and Firm Size: 2002 Economic Census: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Subject Series, Nov 

2005, report nr. EC02-56SS-SZ: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0256ssszt.pdf
153

· Sensitivity Analysis #11: Omission of Baseline Disposal Switchover to Onsite Recycling Under 

Exclusion 1

Concerning the potential of the DSW final rule to induce baseline disposal to switchover to future recycling, this RIA does not attempt 

to estimate whether baseline hazardous waste generator facilities:

· Currently disposing their hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite, may shift the management of their disposed wastes to 

recycling either onsite under Exclusion 1, or

· Currently using offsite hazardous waste recycling, and who may experience DSW de-regulatory cost savings under Exclusion 

2, may elect to switchover to onsite recycling to take advantage of Exclusion 1

This omission reflects the reported low likelihood that generators will construct and operate new onsite recycling operations, according 

to to 13 reasons identified by five industrial public commentors on the 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs as summarized in Section 3C of this 

RIA. The consequence of this omission on the net impact estimate of this RIA may be estimated as by reviewing the contribution of 

this switchover to onsite recycling scenario as estimated in the 2007 DSW RIA (i.e., for Option 8 in Exhibit 6B). The 2007 RIA 

estimated the following ratios between swithover to onsite and to offsite recycling:

· 1.8 ratio: From 0.106 million tons onsite recycling: to: 0.059 million tons offsite recycling (source: 2007 RIA Exhibit 6B 

Columns G, H)

· 2.7 ratio: From $60 million net savings for onsite recycling: to : $22 million net savings for offsite recycling (source: 

2007 RIA Exhibit 6B Columns K, L)

Applying these two alternative ratios to the corresponding impact results of this DSW final rule RIA, produces the following 

sensitivity analysis estimate range:

· Lower-Bound: If based on tonnage ratio = 1.8

Step 1: ($16.7 million/year disposal switchover to offsite recycling in this RIA) x (1.8 ratio) = $30.1 million/year 

omitted impact

Step 2: ($30.1 million/year omitted impact) / ($95.3 million/year impact for this RIA) = 32%

· Upper-Bound: If based on net impact dollar ratio = 2.7

Step 1: ($16.7 million/year disposal switchover to offsite recycling in this RIA) x (2.7 ratio) = $45.1 million/year

omitted impact

Step 2: ($45.1 million/year omitted impact) / ($95.3 million/year impact for this RIA) = 47%
154

Appendices
155

Appendix A

Data Sources for Concentrations, Yield, & Market Values for Recoverable Commodities

This Appendix presents the data and references applied in this RIA for purpose of estimating the potential market value (aka “salvage 

value”) of chemical commodities contained in RCRA industrial hazardous wastes currently disposed, for potential switchover to 

recovery/recycling. These data are applied as inputs to the micro-economic breakeven test in this RIA (Chapter 8). Rather than using 

engineering judgment and miscellaneous secondary sources, this RIA attempted to derive these chemical commodity concentration 

data from OSW’s 1996 “National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey” (NHWCS) database. The NHWCS was benchmarked to the 

1993 RCRA Biennial Report hazardous waste streams, and is the only nationally comprehensive and representative database of its 

kind.35 OSW queried the NHWCS database for chemical constituent identities and corresponding concentrations for disposed wastes 

(i.e., excluding M011 to M019 metals recovery, M021 to M029 solvents recovery, and M031 to M039 other materials recovery).

To build the NHWCS database, in 1996 OSW mailed survey questionnaires to 221 of the largest managers (i.e., TSDRFs) of 

industrial process RCRA hazardous wastes in the US. This facility sample also included some of the largest LQGs who manage their 

own hazardous wastes onsite. The survey data responses received from 156 TSDRFs of this targeted survey sample group accounted 

for 1,020 industrial process waste streams, representing 115 million annual tons (42%) of the 235 million annual hazardous waste 

management tonnage universe reported in the 1993 RCRA Biennial Report by the 2,584 TSDRF universe.

36

Data reported in the survey included over 12,000 parts-per-million (ppm) concentration data corresponding to 2.0 million tons

of 724 different chemical constituents in the wastes (i.e., chemicals with Chemical Abstract Service CAS ID numbers), although 815

chemicals plus other material constituents such as “ash”, “cement”, “clay”, “concrete”, “soybean oil”, “waste oil” etc. were reported 

(see Exhibit A3 below). The 2.0 million tons with constituent data represents 1.8% of the 115 million tons covered in the survey

response, but only 0.9% of the 235 million tons total hazardous waste managed in 2003.

Although constituent data were collected in the NHWCS for a very small percentage of the RCRA-regulated annual hazardous 

waste tonnage, the NHWCS data reported by the 156 TSDRFs represented hazardous wastes generated by, and received from, a broad 

spectrum of hundreds of 4-digit SIC code industries within the following 12 2-digit SIC code industry sub-sectors listed below:

35 An October 1998 report “National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey: Summary Report” which summarizes the survey methodology and data findings for 

OSW’s 1996 National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey (NWHCS) is available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/summary.pdf.

36 Additional summary information and data for the 1993 RCRA Biennial Report are available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br93.htm

1. SIC 28 Chemicals & allied products mfg

2. SIC 29 Petroleum products mfg

3. SIC 32 Stone, clay & glass products mfg

4. SIC 33 Primary metal mfg

5. SIC 34 Fabricated metal products mfg

6. SIC 36 Electronic & other electrical equipment mfg

7. SIC 38 Instruments & related products mfg

8. SIC 42 Trucking & warehousing

9. SIC 49 Electric, gas & sanitary services

10. SIC 50 Wholesale trade
156

11. SIC 73 Business services not elsewhere classified (nec) 12. SIC 95 Environmental quality & housing

Furthermore, as listed beloe, the chemical constituent data represented hazardous wastes managed using a broad spectrum of 13 

methods involving both:

· Onsite methods (61% of the constituent data tonnage) in which the hazardous wastes generator is also the manager (i.e., 

recycler, recoverer, treater, and/or disposer) at the same site, and

· Offsite methods (39% of the constituent data tonnage) in which the generator ships the hazardous waste for management at 

another facility either owned by the same company or another company such as a commercial hazardous waste service:

1. Metals recovery

2. Solvents recovery

3. Energy recovery (i.e., for onsite use by same generator)

4. Fuel blending (i.e., for offsite use by another facility)

5. Stabilization

6. Sludge treatment

7. Landfills

8. Surface impoundments

9. Incineration

10. Aqueous inorganic treatment

11. Aqueous organic treatment

12. Deepwell injection

13. Land application

Exhibit A1 below presents the NHWCS data for each commodity group evaluated by the micro-economic breakeven test in this RIA.

Column G of Exhibit A1 also presents the baseline market prices associated with these recoverable commodities, adjusted by 90% 

factor to account for real or perceived lower materials quality compared to virgin materials, as applied in the Chapter 8 microeconomic breakeven test of this RIA. Before presenting Exhibit A1 containing the NHWCS data results for identifying commodity

values in baseline disposed wasets, there are two prior “lessons learned” derived from a 1998 summary study report of the NHWCS 

database which are worth noting their possible implications on the use of the NHWCS data in this RIA:

· Waste constituents: Recycling RCRA hazardous wastes is made technically difficult in some cases (i.e., for some industrial 

operations and for some sources/types of RCRA hazardous wastes), because of numerous chemical cocontaminates in the wastes. Based on Chapter 3 of the 1998 NHWCS database summary report cited 

above, 90% of facilities reported between 10 and 60 hazardous chemical constituents in individual 

waste streams they receive for management (i.e., for disposal, materials recovery/recycling, or energy/

fuel recovery). Over 33% of facilities reported between 10 and 20 constituents in individual waste 

streams. The highest number of constituents reported for a single waste stream is 287. Waste streams 

reported in the survey carry over 800 different chemical constituents (see Exhibit A3 below). This 

NHWCS suggests that most LQGs and TSDRFs must address a relatively high number of hazardous 

chemical constituents in evaluating the technical feasibility of their waste management options such as 

recycling. The constituent complexity factor is not explicitly addressed in this RIA and represents a 

source of potential over-estimation of baseline disposal switchover to recycling in this RIA.
157

· Waste assay value: Some RCRA hazardous wastes have relatively low (e.g., less than 1%) concentrations for constituents of 

commodity market value. Based on the 1998 NHWCS database summary report referenced above, 

analysis of concentrations of highly prevalent constituents concluded that concentrations of prevalent 

non-metal chemicals are significantly higher than those reported for prevalent metals:

o Non-metals: The median concentration of five prevalent non-metals — toluene, xylene, 

acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methylene chloride — is between 10,000 and 

100,000 parts per million (ppm), which represents a non-metals concentration 

range of 1% to 10% waste volume. Benzene is the only non-metal with a median 

concentration below 100 ppm (i.e., below 0.01%).

o Metals: In comparison, median concentrations of three of four prevalent metals — lead, 

chromium, cadmium, and barium — are over an order of magnitude lower, 

ranging between 1 and 200 ppm (i.e., 0.0001% to 0.02% assay value). Of the 10 

most prevalent metal constituents, only lead and barium have median 

concentrations higher than 100 ppm (i.e., higher than 0.01% assay value). 

Cadmium, silver, mercury, and nickel all have median concentrations less than 10 

ppm (i.e., less than 0.001% assay value); mercury has the lowest median 

concentration at 0.3 ppm (0.00003% assay value).

The implication of this data finding is that the a priori expected outcome of the breakeven test (described 

in Chapter 8 of this RIA) is that it may yield a relatively higher tonnage of wastes containing non-metal 

commodity values compared to waste tonnages containing metal commodity values.

Exhibit A1

Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantities, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value

A B C D E F G

Commodity Concentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes

Item Commodity Type

Tonnage & 

percentage of 

NHWCS waste 

streams with 

commodity present

Count & 

percent of 

NHWCS waste 

streams >0ppm

Minimum

ppm

Maximum

ppm

Tonnage-weighted 

mean ppm

90% of market 

price

($/ton)

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A. Metal Containing Liquids

1 Copper 113,393 (5.5%) 1 (100%) 10.5 10.5 10.5 (0.001%) $5,778 (a)

2 Lead 610,434 (29.7%) 5 (100%) 0.85 250 165.89 (0.017%) $2,124 (a)

3 Zinc 113,383 (5.5%) 1 (100%) 443.8 443.8 443.8 (0.044%) $1,908 (a)

4 Metal Cont. Liqs Weighted Average 610,434 (29.7%) 5 (100%) 250.27 (0.025%) $2,063
158

Exhibit A1

Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantities, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value

A B C D E F G

Commodity Concentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes

Item Commodity Type

Tonnage & 

percentage of 

NHWCS waste 

streams with 

commodity present

Count & 

percent of 

NHWCS waste 

streams >0ppm

Minimum

ppm

Maximum

ppm

Tonnage-weighted 

mean ppm

90% of market 

price

($/ton)

1B. Metal Containing Solids

5 Copper 24,369 (1.2%) 8 (90%) 199 5,040 50,207 (5.021%) $5,778 (a)

6 Lead 87,727 (4.3%) 24 (36%) 0.16 48,000 1,840 (0.184%) $2,124 (a)

7 Zinc 46,130 (2.2%) 10 (51%) 660 140,000 14,607 (1.461%) $1,908 (a)

8 Metal Cont. Solids Weighted Average 87,727 (4.3%) 24 (36%) 41,519 (4.152%) $2,072

1C. Metal Containing Sludges

9 Chromium 25,834 (1.3%) 9 (6%) 0.058 5,000 1,197 (0.120%) $2,412 (b)

10 Copper 2,773 (0.1%) 2 (37%) 162 406 271 (0.027%) $5,778 (a)

11 Nickel 24,184 (1.2%) 9 (8%) 0.03 51,000 9,939 (0.994%) $22,644 (a)

12 Zinc 2,773 (0.1%) 2 (4%) 6,730 23,600 16,043 (1.604%) $1,908 (a)

13 Metal Cont. Sludges Weighted Average 31,531 (1.5%) 11 (7%) 10,040 (1.004%) $9,413

1D. Emission Control Dust (K061)

14 Zinc 160,640 (7.8%) 4 (62%) 36,111 140,000 24,507 (2.451%) $1,908 (a)

1E. Molybdenum Disulfide Catalyst

15 Molybdenum disulfide No data in NHWCS No data in 

NHWCS

No data in 

NHWCS

No data in 

NHWCS

No data in

NHWCS (5%)**

$39,051

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A. Solvent Bearing Liquids (1)

16 Alkyl Benzenes** 66,406 (3.2%) 20 (100%) 380,900 380,900 380,900 (38.09%) $911 (c)

17 C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes 80,309 (3.9%) 14 (100%) 98,700 98,700 98,700 (9.87%) $911 (c)

18 Toluene 504,254 (24.5%) 163 (52%) 0.171 935,000 140,198 (14.02%) $900 (c)

19 Xylene 426,152 (20.7%) 145 (39%) 0.077 852,800 156,983 (15.70%) $923 (c)

20 Methanol 274,651 (13.3%) 103 (31%) 2.58 990,000 129,504 (12.95%) $442 (c)

21 Solvent Bearing Liqs. Wtd Average 545,253 (26.5%) 183 (56%) 378,509 (37.85%) $845

2B. Other Organic Liquids

22 Acetone 124,556 (6.1%) 23 (56%) 25 400,000 54,640 (5.46%) $756 (c)

23 MEK 117,662 (5.7%) 21 (35%) 50 100,000 44,977 (4.50%) $1,152 (c)

24 Toluene 138,808 (6.7%) 33 (51%) 15 222,000 111,239 (11.12%) $900 (c)

25 Xylene 128,218 (6.2%) 27 (56%) 27 448,000 88,185 (8.82%) $923 (c)

26 Other Organic Liqs. Weighted Average 142,035 (6.9%) 35 (37%) 273,101 (27.31%) $909

Commodity Group #3: Other

27 Carbon No data in NHWCS No data in 

NHWCS

No data in 

NHWCS

No data in 

NHWCS

No data in

NHWCS (90%)**

$4,289**

28 Acids No data in NHWCS No data in No data in No data in No data in $46 (a)
159

Exhibit A1

Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantities, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value

A B C D E F G

Commodity Concentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes

Item Commodity Type

Tonnage & 

percentage of 

NHWCS waste 

streams with 

commodity present

Count & 

percent of 

NHWCS waste 

streams >0ppm

Minimum

ppm

Maximum

ppm

Tonnage-weighted 

mean ppm

90% of market 

price

($/ton)

NHWCS NHWCS NHWCS NHWCS (74%)**

Non-duplicative total = 1,577,620 (77%) 262 (70%)

Explanatory Notes:

· Column A: Chemicals for each commodity group identified based on chemicals with >0pm concentrations in a substantial annual tonnage (i.e., greater than 10,000 tons/year) of 1993 

disposed hazardous wastes reported in OSW’s 1996 “National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey” (NHWCS) database, which is available as webpage item 4 at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm. OSW identified the chemicals for each commodity group/sub-group by using the NHWCS data codes displayed in 

Exhibit A2 below.

· * The NHWCS database listed several constituents that were grouped together for pricing purposes for solvent bearing liquids subgroup as alkyl benzenes. alkyl benzenes includes 

those constituents listed as alkyl benzene, C9 – C10 alkyl benzene, xylene, and toluene.

· Column B: Annual tonnage of the entire waste matrix (i.e., not just the single chemical constituent mass) reported in the NHWCS database for the associated one or more disposed 

waste streams containing the commodity chemical, and the corresponding percentage of the 2.1 million tons of the NWHCS database for which chemical constituents were identified as 

present by survey respondents.

· Column C: Count of individual waste streams reporting the presence (i.e., >0ppm) and the respective percentage of the Column B tonnage with constituent concentration data >0ppm.

· Columns D, E, F: Based on the disposed waste streams reporting the presence (i.e., >0ppm) of the chemical constituent in the NHWCS database.

· Column G: To account for possible perceived or real lower quality compared to virgin-materials, recovered commodities are assumed to obtain 90% of market price from the following 

price sources:

(a) London Metal Exchange, Average January 2008 price: http://www.lme.com

(b) http://www.MetalPrices.com average weekly price from March 2, 2007 through August 24, 2007 (2007 price applied to avoid Jan/Feb 2008 spike price).

(c) ICIS Pricing, February 22, 2008: http://www.icis.com. The price for the alkyl benzenes is based on a weighted average price for 47% toluene & 53% xylene.

· ** Other data sources for commodities in disposed wastes for which there is no NHWCS data:

o Row 15: Received verbal price quote from Atlantic Equipment Engineers listed on http://www.micronmetals.com for Molybdenum Disulfide in quantities of 100lbs or greater 

and averaged with price of technical grade in 50 lb. lot from: http://rosemillcom.host-manager.com/product.asp?productid=258465. An assay value of 16.7% is assumed for 

the recovered value of the catalysts based on a calibration of the baseline cost estimates comparing offsite disposal to onsite recycling under pre-rule conditions (i.e., assumed 

percent of tonnage containing recoverable catalyst). The percentage recovered product from spent catalyst (waste codes K171 and K172) was estimated using engineering 

judgment as to the concentration of the recoverable product from the waste stream, likelihood of destruction during the recovery process and potential of the recovered 

product to retain useable characteristics. The percentage recovered product for spent catalyst is 5% (i.e., 5% of catalyst is reusable).

o Row 26: From RACER 2005 cost estimating software was used for the unit price (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: 

http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm). The percentage recovered product from spent granular activated carbon was estimated using engineering judgment as 

to the concentration of the recoverable product from the waste stream, likelihood of destruction during the recovery process and potential of the recovered product to retain 

useable characteristics. An assay value of 10% was assumed for the price of recovered activated carbon based on a calibration of the baseline cost estimates comparing offsite 

disposal to onsite recycling under pre-rule conditions (i.e., percent of tonnage containing recoverable carbon). The percentage recovered product for spent granular activated 

carbon is 90% (i.e., 90% of carbon is reusable).

o Row 28:The percentage recovered product for acids recovered from acid waste streams was estimated. Waste streams at selected recovery facilities were reviewed by 

comments, disposal system type, and origin to determine the likely waste streams generated from the recovery operations. Assuming there are minimal lost products by 

spillage or evaporation, the mass of the original waste stream (recovery waste stream) minus the reported residuals waste stream (i.e., sludge, and wastewater) is the mass of 

the recovered product. The waste residual fraction is described in the respective recovery technology section. Based on the estimated waste residual mass fraction, the 

recoverable product mass fraction is estimated at 74% for acid product recovery.
160

OSW’s query for this RIA, of the 1996 NHWCS database for disposed hazardous waste constituents, yielded 32,575 rows of data, 

each row representing a single chemical/material constituent for a single waste stream at a single facility. However, 21,807 (67%) of 

the 32,575 data rows indicated zero ppm (i.e., 0 ppm), which were excluded from calculation of the tonnage-weighted means displayed 

in Exhibit A1 above. Zero ppm data were excluded from computation of the tonnage-weighted means because they signify37:

· Missing ppm data, or

· Non-numerical data such as:

o “None/Not Applicable (NA)”, Not Tested (NT)”

o “Present at Unknown Concentration (PR)”

o “Not Detected”

o “Less Than Detection Limit (ND)”

o “Trace (TR)”

o “Don't Know (DK)” 

Exhibit A2 below presents the data code crosswalk OSW used to analyze the disposed hazardous waste data extracted from the 1996 

NHWCS database, to identify commodity constituents relevant for assigning to each of the three commodity groups/sub-groups

displayed in Exhibit A1. This crosswalk was necessary because the 1996 NWHCS database is based on the pre-2001 RCRA Biennial 

Reports coding system (USEPA revised the RCRA Biennial Reporting codes beginning with data year 2001). See pages 77 to 81 of 

the 2001 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report “Instructions and Forms” (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/insfrms.pdf) for a comparison of the pre-2001 RCRA codes with the current RCRA codes involving hazardous waste (a) industrial source 

codes (i.e., Gxx compared to Axx on page 77), (b) physical/chemical form codes (i.e., Wxxx compared to Bxxx on pages 79-80), and 

(c) management method codes (i.e., Hxxx compared to Mxxx on page 81).

37 Source: page 21 of “Draft Documentation for the Data Files for the National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey”, prepared by Westat, Inc., 30 March 1998 

at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/datadoc5.pdf
161

Exhibit A2

Definition of Commodity Sub-Groups

for Assignment of Recoverable Constituents and Average Concentrations from the NHWCS Database*

for Evaluating Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Future Recovery/Recycling

Commodity Sub-Group Physical Form Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes

NHWCS form codes = Bxxx NHWCS regulatory codes = same as Biennial Report

Commodity Group #1: For Possible Metal Recovery:

1A. Metal-bearing 

liquids

· B106 + B107 = W107 wastes containing cyanides

1B. Mercury-bearing 

wastes

· B117 = W117 waste liquid mercury

1C. Metal-bearing solids · B303 = W303 ash

· B304 = W304 slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues

· B307 = W307 metal scale, filings & scrap (metal drums)

· B312 = W312 cyanide or metal cyanide solids, chemicals

· B316 = W316 metal salts or chemicals w/out cyanides

· B319 = W319 other inorganic solids

1D. Metal-bearing 

sludges

· B305 + B306 = W501 lime and/or metal hydroxide 

sludge/solids

· B505 = W505 metal bearing sludge w/out cyanide

· B506 = W506 cyanide-bearing sludge (non contaminated soils)

· B519 = W519 other inorganic sludge

· D005 barium

· D006 cadmium

· D007 chromium

· D008 lead

· D009 mercury

· D010 selenium

· D011 silver

· F006, F007, F008, F009 metal electroplating

· F010, F011, F012 metal heat treating

· F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum

· F035 inorganic wood preservative waste (arsenic or 

chromium)

· K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008 inorganic 

pigment mfg sludge & residues (listed for chromium)

· K064, K065, K066, K069, K086, K100 lead- or chromiumbearing

· K061 iron & steel mfg emission dust

· K071, K073, K106, K176, K177, K178 inorganic chemical 

mfg

· K171, K172 petroleum refining spent catalysts

Commodity Group #2: For Possible Solvent Recovery:

2A. Solvent-bearing 

liquids

· B202 = W202 concentrated halogenated organic liquids

· B203 = W203 concentrated non-halogenated organic liquids

· B201 + B204 = W204 concentrated halo/non-halogenated 

solvents

2B. Other organicbearing liquids

· B209 = W209 paint, ink, lacquer or varnish

· B211 = W211 paint thinner or petroleum distillates

· B219 = W219 other organic liquid

· F001, F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

· F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

· K086 solvent washes of ink equipment

Commodity Group #3: For Possible Other Recovery (e.g. Acids and Carbon Regeneration)

3A. Acids · B103 + B104 = W103 spent concentrated acid >5%

· B105 = W105 acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid

3B. Caustics · B108 + B109 + B110 = W110 caustic aqueous waste without 

cyanides

· K031, K043; K097, K098, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, 

K131, K132 pesticide mfg wastewaters, sludges, absorbents, 

solids

· K062 iron & steel mfg spent pickle liquor
162

Exhibit A2

Definition of Commodity Sub-Groups

for Assignment of Recoverable Constituents and Average Concentrations from the NHWCS Database*

for Evaluating Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Future Recovery/Recycling

Commodity Sub-Group Physical Form Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes

NHWCS form codes = Bxxx NHWCS regulatory codes = same as Biennial Report

3C. Spent carbon · B310 + B403 + B404 = W310 filters, adsorbents, resins & 

spent carbon

3D. Sodium fluoride Any

· K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

Explanatory Notes:

* NHWCS = 1993 OSW National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey, available as item 4 at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm.

** There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx codes, 120 Kxxx, codes, 205 Pxxx codes, and , 612 Uxxxx codes defined for data 

reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for complete lists see pp. 49 to 54 of the 2005 BR instructions book at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf

Exhibit A3 below displays a consolidated list of 815 chemical and material constituents reported with concentrations > 0 ppm 

(parts-per-million) in disposed hazardous waste data from the 1996 NHWCS database. This list is consolidated from the 32,575 

constituent datapoint rows produced by query of the 1996 NHWCS database for disposed wastes (i.e., RCRA Biennial Report system 

codes = M041 to M137). Many of these constituents are either (a) associated with only one waste stream, or (b) associated with more 

than one waste stream which aggregate to a relatively small quantity, so they were excluded from the baseline disposal switchover to 

recycling breakeven test of this RIA. This exclusion of other constituents from the breakeven test is a source of resource recovery

benefit under-estimation in this RIA.

Exhibit A3

List of 815 Constituents with Concentrations > 0ppm in Disposed Hazardous Wastes in the 1996 NHWCS Database

1. 1-Chloro-1,3-butadiene

2. 1-Hexanol

3. 1-Hexene

4. 1-Methylnaphthalene

5. 1-Methylpiperidine [NMethylpiperidine

6. 1-Pentene

7. 1-Pentyne

8. 12-Hydroxyoctadecanoic acid

9. 1,1'-Methylenebis(isocyanato)benzene

10. 1,1-Dichloroethane [Ethylidene 

dichloride]

11. 1,1-Dichloroethylene [Vinylidene 

chloride]

12. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane [Methyl 

chloroform]

13. 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

14. 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 

[Freon 113]

15. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane [Vinyl 

trichloride]

16. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

17. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene [oDichlorobenzene]

18. 1,2-Dichloroethane [Ethylene 

dichloride]

19. 1,2-Dichloroethylene, mixed isomers

20. 1,2-Dichloropropane [Propylene 

dichloride]

21. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane

22. 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene 

[Tetralin]

23. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

24. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 

[Pseudocumene]

25. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
163

26. 1,3-Butadiene

27. 1,3-Butylene glycol

28. 1,3-Dichloro-2-butene

29. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene [mDichlorobenzene]

30. 1,3-Dichloropropene [1,3-Dichloro-1-

propene][mixed isomers]

31. 1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone 

[N,N'-Dimethylethylene urea]

32. 1,3-Pentadiene

33. 1,3,3-Trichloropropene

34. 1,3,5-Trimethyl-2,4,6-tris-(3,5-di-tertbutyl-4hydroxybenzyl) benzene

35. 1,4-Butanediol

36. 1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol

37. 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene, mixed isomers

38. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene [pDichlorobenzene]

39. 1,4-Dioxane [1,4-Diethyleneoxide]

40. 1,4-hexadiene, (Z)-

41. 1,4-Pentadiene

42. 1,5-Cyclooctadiene

43. 1,5-Pentanediol

44. 1,6-Hexamethylene diisocyanate

45. 1,6-Hexanediol [Hexamethylene 

glycol]

46. 2'-Hydroxy acteophenone

47. 2- Chloroethanol [Ethylene 

chlorohydrin]

48. 2-Acetylaminofluorene [2-AAF]

49. 2-Benzotriazol

50. 2-Butanol [sec-Butanol]

51. 2-Butoxyethanol [Butyl 

cellosolve][Ethylene gycol monobutyl 

ether]

52. 2-Butyne-1,4-diol

53. 2-Butyne [Crotnylene]

54. 2-Chloronaphthalene [betaChloronaphthalene]

55. 2-Chlorophenol [o-Chlorophenol]

56. 2-Ethoxyethanol acetate [2-

EEA][Cellosolveacetate]

57. 2-Ethoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol 

monoethyl ether][Cellosolve]

58. 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol

59. 2-Ethyl-1,3-butylene glycol

60. 2-Ethyl-1,3-propanediol

61. 2-Ethylhexanal

62. 2-Hexanone

63. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate [Glycol 

methacrylate]

64. 2-Mercaptoethanol

65. 2-Methoxy-1-propyl acetate

66. 2-Methoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol 

monomethyl ether]

67. 2-Methyl-1-butene

68. 2-Methyl-2-butene [Amylene]

69. 2-Methyl-2-propanethiol [tert-Butyl 

mercaptan]

70. 2-Methyl-2,4-pentanediol [Hexylene 

glycol]

71. 2-Methyl pentane

72. 2-Methylhexane

73. 2-Methylnaphthalene

74. 2-Nitroaniline [o-Nitroaniline]

75. 2-Nitrobenzoic Acid

76. 2-Nitrophenol [o-Nitrophenol]

77. 2-Nitropropane

78. 2-Pentanol

79. 2-Pentene [Beta-N-amylene]

80. 2-Picoline [alpha-Picoline][2-

Methylpyridine]

81. 2-Propanol [Isopropyl 

alcohol][Isopropanol]

82. 2-(3-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid

83. 2-(4-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid 

[Ibuprofen]

84. 2 B-3 Alcohol

85. 2,2'-Methylene bis(6-tert-butyl phenol)

86. 2,2-Dimethylbutane

87. 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane [Iso-octane]

88. 2,3-Diamino toluene [2,3-

Toluenediamine]

89. 2,3-Dichloro-1-propene

90. 2,3-Dichlorobutane

91. 2,3-Dimethyl butane

92. 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol

93. 2,4- and 2,6-Toluene diisocyanate 

mixture

94. 2,4-D [2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic 

acid]

95. 2,4-di-tert-Butylphenol

96. 2,4-Dichlorophenol

97. 2,4-Dimethyl-4-Vinyl Cyclohexene

98. 2,4-Dimethylphenol

99. 2,4-Dinitrophenol

100.2,4-Dinitrotoluene

101.2,4-Toluene diisocyanate

102.2,4-Toluenediamine [2,4-

Diaminotoluene]

103.2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

104.2,4,6-Di-tert-butylphenol

105.2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

106.2,5-Di-tert-amylhydroquinone [2,5-Ditert-pentylhydroquinone]

107.2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol

108.2,6-Dichlorophenol

109.2,6-Dinitrotoluene

110.2,6-Toluene diisocyanate

111.2,6-Toluenediamine [2,6-

Diaminotoluene]

112.3-Methyl-1,4-pentadiene

113.3-Methyl-2-butanone [Methyl 

isopropyl ketone]

114.3-Methyl pentane

115.3-Methyl pyridine [beta-Picoline]

116.3-Nitro-o-xylene

117.3-Nitroaniline [m-Nitroaniline]

118.3-Pentanol

119.3-Pentanone [Diethyl ketone]

120.3-(4-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid

121.3-(Dimethylamino)propylamine

122.3-(Triethoxysilyl)-1-propanamine [3-

Aminopropyl) triethoxysilane]

123.3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

124.3,3-Dichloropropene

125.3,3,3-Trichloro-2-Metyl-1-Propene

126.3,4-Dichlorobutene-1

127.3,4-Toluenediamine [3,4-

Diaminotoluene]

128.4'-Isobutyl acetophenone
164

129.4-Acetoxy acteophenone

130.4-alpha-Cumylphenol

131.4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether [pBromo diphenyl ether]

132.4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

133.4-Hydroxy acetophenone

134.4-Isobutyl ethyl benzene

135.4-Isobutyl phenyl ethenol

136.4-Isobutyl styrene

137.4-Methyl morpholine

138.4-Nitro-o-xylene

139.4-Nitroaniline [p-Nitroaniline][4-

Nitrobenzenamine]

140.4-Nitrophenol [p-Nitrophenol]

141.4-Vinylcyclohexene

142.4-(Diglycidamino) phenyl glycidyl 

ether

143.4,4'-Methylene-bis-(2,6-diethylaniline)

144.4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)

145.4,4'-Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 

[MDI][Methylenebis(phenylisocyante)

]

146.4,4'-Methylenedianiline [p,p'-

Diaminodiphenylmethane][MDA]

147.4,4'-Thiobis(6-tert-butyl)phenol

148.4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol [4,6-Dinitro-2-

methyl phenol]

149.7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene

150.Acenaphthene

151.Acenaphthylene

152.Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]

153.Acetamide

154.Acetates

155.Acetic acid

156.Acetic anhydride

157.Acetone [2-Propanone]

158.Acetonitrile [Methyl cyanide]

159.Acetophenone

160.Acetyl chloride

161.Acetylene

162.Acridine

163.Acrolein [2-Propenal]

164.Acronitrile-Butadiene-Styrene 

Polymer

165.Acronitrile-Butadiene Polymer

166.Acrylamide

167.Acrylic acid

168.Acrylic Copolymer

169.Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile]

170.Acryloyl chloride

171.Adiponitrile [Hexanedinitrile]

172.Al Compounds

173.Alcohol Sd No.3a Absolute

174.Aldrin

175.Alkyl benzenes

176.Alkyl naphthalenes

177.Alkylalkanolamines

178.Allyl alcohol

179.Allyl chloride [3-Chloropropylene][3-

Chloropropene]

180.Allyl methacrylate

181.alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane [alphaBHC]

182.alpha-Methylstyrene

183.alpha-Pinene Polymers

184.Aluminum

185.Aluminum chloride hexahydrate

186.Aluminum silicate

187.Aluminum silicate, hydrated

188.Ammonia, gas

189.Ammonium acetate

190.Ammonium Acetone Disulfonate

191.Ammonium bicarbonate

192.Ammonium chloride

193.Ammonium hydroxide [Ammonia 

solution]

194.Ammonium oxides

195.Ammonium phosphate

196.Ammonium sulfate

197.Ammoniun phosphate, dibasic

198.Amyl acetate

199.Aniline

200.Anthracene

201.Antimony

202.Antimony trioxide

203.Aroclor 1242 [PCB 1242]

204.Aromatic 200

205.Arsenic

206.Ash

207.Atrazine

208.Azeo Oil

209.Barium

210.Barium metaborate

211.Barium Oxide

212.Barium sulfate

213.Bentone 38 organophillic clay

214.Benzal chloride [Dichloromethyl 

benzene]

215.Benzene

216.Benzoic acid

217.Benzophenone

218.Benzoyl peroxide

219.Benzo(a)pyrene

220.Benzo(b)fluoranthene

221.Benzo(k)fluoranthene

222.Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

223.Benzyl alcohol

224.Benzyl chloride

225.Benz[a]anthracene

226.Beryllium

227.Beta-cis-amylene [2-Pentene-cis]

228.beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane [betaBHC]

229.beta-Myrcene

230.beta-Pinene, alpha-Pinene

231.beta-Pinine Polymer

232.Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane 

[Dichloromethoxy ethane]

233.Bismuth

234.Bisphenol A-Epichlorohydrin 

copolymer

235.Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether [Epoxide 

A]

236.Bisphenol A [2,2-bis(4-

hydroxyphenyl)propane)]

237.Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 

[Dichloroethyl ether]

238.Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether [2,2'-

Oxybis(2-chloropropane)]

239.Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [Di-2-

ethylhexyl phthalate]

240.Brass Foundry/Silica
165

241.Bromine

242.Bromodichloromethane 

[Dichlorobromomethane]

243.Bromoform [Tribromomethane]

244.Bromomethane [Methyl bromide]

245.Brown/Red Clay

246.BTEX

247.Butyl benzyl phthalate

248.Butyl glycolate

249.Butyl methacrylate [2-Methyl butyl 

acrylate]

250.Butyric acid [Butanoic acid]

251.C12-C20 Parrafins

252.C4-6 Dicarbonic acid, mixture

253.C6-C12 Aliphatics

254.C6 Alkenes/Alkenes

255.C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes

256.Cadmium

257.Cadmium hydroxide

258.Cadmium sulfide

259.Calcium

260.Calcium carbonate

261.Calcium chloride

262.Calcium hydroxide

263.Calcium nitrate

264.Calcium oxide

265.Calcium resinate

266.Calcium sulfate

267.Calcium zinc resinate

268.Caprolactam

269.Caprylene [1-Octene]

270.Carbazole

271.Carbon

272.Carbon black

273.Carbon dioxide

274.Carbon disulfide

275.Carbon monoxide

276.Carbon tetrachloride

277.Carboxy Methyl Cellulose

278.Catalyst Tlf 2370c

279.Catechol

280.CD-dimers

281.Cellite

282.Cellulose

283.Cement

284.Chlordane

285.Chlorine

286.Chloroacetone

287.Chlorobenzene

288.Chlorobutanes

289.Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]

290.Chloroform

291.Chloromethane [Methyl chloride]

292.Chloroprene-Sulfur polymer

293.Chloroprene [2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene]

294.Chlorothalonil

295.Chlorotoluene, mixed isomers

296.Chromium

297.Chromium oxide

298.Chromium trioxide

299.Chrysene

300.CI Pigment Blue 15 [Copper 

Phthalocyanine]

301.CI Pigment Green 36

302.CI Pigment Green 7

303.CI Pigment Yellow 14 [Benzidine 

yellow OT]

304.cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

305.cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene [cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene]

306.cis-4-Methyl-2-pentene

307.cis-Polybutadiene

308.Clay

309.Coal tar creosote

310.Cobalt

311.Concrete

312.Copper

313.Copper acetylide

314.Creosote

315.Cresols, mixed isomers

316.Crotonaldehyde

317.Crotonaldehyde, trans- stereoisomer

318.Crude Oil Soilds (Parrefins)

319.Crushed Drums

320.Cryolite [Sodium aluminofluoride]

321.Cumene [Isopropyl benzene]

322.Cyanides

323.Cyanides (Amenable)

324.Cyanides (Cyanohydrins)

325.Cyanogen bromide [Bromine cyanide]

326.Cyclohexane

327.Cyclohexanol

328.Cyclohexanone

329.Cyclohexylamine

330.Cyclopentadiene

331.Cyclopentane

332.D-Limonene

333.Dacthal [2,3,5,6-

Tetrachloroterephthalic acid][DCPA]

334.Decalin

335.delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane [deltaBHC]

336.Deuterated Toluene

337.Di-n-butyl phthalate

338.Di-n-butylether [n-Butyl ether]

339.Di-n-octyl phthalate

340.Diacetone alcohol

341.Dibenzofuran

342.Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

343.Dibromochloromethane 

[Chlorodibromomethane]

344.Dichlorobenzene, mixed isomers

345.Dichlorodifluoromethane [CFC-12]

346.Dichloropropane, mixed isomers

347.Dicyanodiamide

348.Dicyclopentadiene

349.Dieldrin

350.Diethyl phthalate

351.Diethylene glycol-trimethylpropaneadipate polymer

352.Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether 

[Diglyme]

353.Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether 

[Butyl carbitol]

354.Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 

[Methyl Carbitol]

355.Diethylenetriamine

356.Diisobutyl ketone [Isobutyl ketone]

357.Diisopropylfluorophosphate [DFP]

358.Dimethyl adipate

359.Dimethyl disulfide
166

360.Dimethyl gluterate [Pentanedioic acid, 

dimethyl ester]

361.Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite 

[Phosphonic acid, dimethyl ester]

362.Dimethyl methyl phosphonate

363.Dimethyl naphthalene

364.Dimethyl phthalate

365.Dimethyl succinate [Butanedioic acid, 

dimethyl ester]

366.Dimethyl sulfate

367.Dimethyl sulfide [Methyl 

sulfide][Thiobismethane]

368.Dimethyl sulfoxide

369.Dinitro-o-xylenes (3,4 & 3,5)

370.Dinitrotoluene, mixed isomers

371.Dinitroxylenols

372.Dinoseb [2-sec-Butyl-4,6-

dinitrophenol]

373.Diphenyl ether [diphenyl oxide]

374.Diphenylamine

375.DIPRENE

376.Dipropylene glycol methyl ether

377.Dirt/Sand/Soil/Rocks/Gravel/Debris

378.Distillates, petroleum, solvent-refined 

light paraffinic

379.Disulfoton

380.Ditrimethylol propane

381.Dust/Lime/Metal

382.Echinocandin B

383.Endosulfan

384.Endosulfan I [alpha-Endosulfan]

385.Endosulfan II [beta-Endosulfan]

386.Endosulfan sulfate

387.Endrin

388.Endrin aldehyde

389.Epoxy resin [Epikote 862]

390.Epoxynovalac

391.Ethanol [Ethyl alcohol]

392.Ethyl acrylate

393.Ethyl butyl ketone [3-Heptanone]

394.Ethyl cyanide 

[Propionitrile][Propanenitrile]

395.Ethyl ether [Ethane 1,1'-oxybis]

396.Ethyl formate

397.Ethyl methacrylate

398.Ethylbenzene

399.Ethylene

400.Ethylene dibromide [1,2-

Dibromoethane]

401.Ethylene glycol

402.Ethylene glycol butyl ether acetate 

[Butyl cellosolve acetate]

403.Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether [1,2-

Dimethoxyethane]

404.Ethylene oxide

405.Ethylenediamine

406.Extracts (petroleum), heavy naphtha 

solvent

407.Ferric chloride

408.Ferric Salt Of 3-Nitro

409.Filter Aid-Carbon

410.Fluoranthene

411.Fluorene

412.Fluoride

413.Fluoroalkyl carboxylate

414.Fluorochemical adduct

415.Formaldehyde

416.Formamide

417.Formic Acid

418.Fuel oil #2

419.Fuel oil #6

420.Fumaronitrile

421.Fumaronitrile [Fumaric acid dinitrile]

422.Furan

423.gamma-Picoline [4-Methyl pyridine]

424.Glutaraldehyde

425.Glycol ethers

426.Gylcerin [Glycerol][Propanetriol]

427.HEAVY ENDS

428.Heptachlor

429.Heptachlor epoxide

430.Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 

[Hexachlorobutadiene]

431.Hexachlorobenzene

432.Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

433.Hexachloroethane

434.Hexadiene Oligomers

435.Hexamethyldisilazane

436.High boiling aliphatic hydrocarbons

437.HOC

438.HXCDFS

439.Hydrazine

440.Hydrocarbon polymer resin

441.Hydrogen chloride [Hydrochloric 

acid]

442.Hydrogen fluoride [Hydrofluoric acid]

443.Hydrogen peroxide

444.Hydroiodic acid

445.Hydroquinone

446.Hydrotreated heavy naphtha

447.Hyrdrocarbon sludge

448.Hyrdrocarbons

449.Hyrdrocarbons (Low Boiling)

450.Imidazole

451.Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene

452.Indole

453.Ink

454.Inorganics

455.Iodine

456.Iodomethane [Methyl iodide]

457.Irganox

458.Iron

459.Iron oxide

460.Isoamyl acetate

461.Isobutyl acetate

462.Isobutyl Acrylate

463.Isobutyl alcohol

464.Isobutyl isobutyrate

465.Isobutyraldehyde

466.Isom Reactor

467.Isooctyl acrylate

468.Isoparaffinnic hydrocarbons

469.Isopentane

470.Isophorone

471.Isoprene [2-Methyl-1,3-butadiene]

472.Isopropyl acetate

473.Isopropyl ether

474.K-10 Bentonite clay

475.Kerosene

476.L-Aspartic acid

477.L-Limonene

478.Lanolin
167

479.Lauryl methacrylate

480.Lead

481.Lead chromate VI oxide

482.Lead II sulfate

483.Limonene, racemic mixture 

[Dipentene]

484.Lindane [gammaHexachlorocyclohexane][gammaBHC]

485.Lithium fluoride

486.Loracarbef monohydrate

487.m-Cresol [3-Methyl phenol]

488.Magnesium

489.Magnesium hydrate

490.Magnesium oxide

491.Magnesium resinate

492.Maleic acid

493.Maleic anhydride

494.Malic Anhydride

495.Malononitrile

496.Manganese

497.Meat & Meat By-Products

498.Mercury

499.Mesityl oxide

500.Metal Oxides (Zinc, Brass, 

Aluminum)

501.Methacrylic acid

502.Methacrylonitrile

503.Methacryloyl chloride

504.Methanol [Methyl alcohol]

505.Methoxychlor

506.Methyl acetate

507.Methyl amyl ketone [2-Heptanone]

508.Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide

509.Methyl ethyl ketone [2-

Butanone][MEK]

510.Methyl ethyl ketoxime [2-Butanone 

oxime]

511.Methyl formate

512.Methyl isoamyl ketone [5-Methyl-2-

hexanone]

513.Methyl isobutyl ketone [Hexone][4-

Methyl-2-pentanone]

514.Methyl isobutyrate [2-

Methylpropanoic acid methyl ester]

515.Methyl methacrylate

516.Methyl naphthalenes

517.Methyl parathion

518.Methyl tert-butyl ether

519.Methylchrysene (Total)

520.Methylcyclohexane

521.Methylene chloride [Dichloromethane]

522.Mica

523.Mineral oil, light and heavy

524.Mineral spirits

525.Mirror Backing

526.Misc. Chlorinated Organics

527.Mixed Alcohols

528.Mixed Esters & Diols

529.Molybdenum

530.Morpholine

531.Mycelia Solids

532.n-Amyl alcohol [1-Pentanol]

533.n-Butyl-n-butyrate

534.n-Butyl acetate

535.n-Butyl alcohol [n-Butanol]

536.n-Butyl bromide

537.n-Butyl formate

538.n-Butyraldehyde [Butanal]

539.N-Ethyl morpholine

540.n-Heptane

541.n-Hexane

542.N-Methyldiethanolamine

543.N-Methylpyrrolidone [1-Methyl-2-

pyrrolidinone]

544.N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine [Di-npropylnitrosamine]

545.N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 

[Diphenylnitrosamine]

546.n-Octyl mercaptan [1-Octanethiol]

547.n-Propyl acetate

548.n-Propyl alcohol [n-Propanol]

549.n-Propylamine [1-Propanamine]

550.n-tert-Butylphenol-formaldehyde 

polymer

551.n-Vinyl-Caprolactam

552.N-(1-Ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl 

benzamine

553.Naphtha [Petroleum benzin]

554.Naphthalene

555.Naphtha, light steam-cracked 

aromatic, piperylene conc. polymd.

556.Natural rubber [Polyisoprene]

557.Neopentyl glycol

558.Neopentyl glycol gylcidyl ether

559.Nickel

560.Nickel hydroxide

561.Nicotinonitrile [3-Pyridinecarbonitrile]

562.Nitrates

563.Nitrobenzene

564.Nitrogen

565.Nitromethane

566.Nitrotoluene

567.Nonyl phenol

568.N,N'-Dimethyl acetamide

569.N,N-Diethyl aniline

570.N,N-Dimethyl-N-octylamine

571.N,N-Dimethyl formamide

572.o-Cresol [2-Methyl phenol]

573.o-Toluidine [2-Methylaniline]

574.o-Xylene [1,2-Dimethylbenzene]

575.Octadecyl acrylate

576.Octadecyl isocyanate

577.Octadecyl methacrylate

578.Octane

579.Octane sulfonic acid sodium salt 

monohydrate

580.Oily sludge

581.Oil/Oils

582.Organic Esters

583.Organic Nitrogen

584.Organic Residues

585.Organic Tar & Salts

586.Organophillic clay

587.Other Misc Organics

588.Other Organics

589.Other Polymers

590.Oxazole

591.Oxygen

592.o,p'-DDD
168

593.o,p'-DDE [o,p'-TDE]

594.o,p'-DDT

595.p-Chloro-m-cresol

596.p-Chloroaniline [4-Chloroaniline]

597.p-Chlorophenol

598.p-Cresol [4-Methyl phenol]

599.p-Nitrobenzoic acid

600.p-Toluidine [4-Methylaniline]

601.Paint

602.para-Nitrobenzyl bromide

603.para-Nitrobenzyl ester of PVSO

604.para-Toluene sulfonic acid

605.Paraffinic Olefinic Hydrocarbons

606.PCB's

607.Peatanane Tech Normal

608.PECDFS

609.Pendimethalin

610.Pentachlorobenzene

611.Pentachlorobutadiene

612.Pentachloroethane

613.Pentachlorophenol [PCP]

614.Pentaerythritol tetraacrylate

615.Pentane

616.Petroleum distillate

617.Petroleum Hydrocarbons

618.Petroleum resins

619.Petroleum Sludges

620.Petroluem naphtha [Ligroin]

621.Phenacetin

622.Phenanthrene

623.Phenol

624.Phenol-formaldehyde polymer

625.Phenoldisulfonic acid

626.Phenolic Resin

627.Phenothiazine

628.Phenyl acetate

629.Phenylacetic acid

630.Phenylenediamine, mixed isomers

631.Phenylenedicarbonyl

632.Phorate

633.Phosgene [Carbonic dichloride]

634.Phosphoric acid

635.Phosphorus

636.Phthalazine

637.Phthalic

638.Phthalic anhydride

639.Pigment Blue

640.Pivalic acid [Trimethyl acetic acid]

641.PNA'S

642.Polyacrylic acid [2-Propenoic acid 

homopolymer]

643.Polyamide Resin

644.Polybutylene

645.Polychloroprene

646.Polymer

647.Polymethylene [Isocyanic acid, 

polymethylenepolyphenylene ester]

648.Polypropylene glycid glycerol triether

649.Polypropylene glycol

650.Polystryene

651.Polytetrahydrofuran

652.Polyurethane

653.Polyurethane resin

654.Poly(alpha-methylstyrene)

655.Poly(ethylene terephthalate)

656.Poly(isoprene) [Rubber]

657.Potassium acetate

658.Potassium chloride

659.Potassium hydroxide

660.Potassium sulfate

661.Potassium tetrafluoroborate

662.Potassium tetrathionate

663.Production Intermediates

664.Propyl cellosolve

665.Propylene glycol methyl ether

666.Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate

667.Propylene glycol monopropyl ether

668.Propylene glycol [1,2-Propane diol]

669.PYRANS

670.Pyrene

671.Pyridine

672.Pyridoxal-5'-phosphate

673.p,p'-DDD

674.p,p'-DDE [p,p'-TDE]

675.p,p'-DDT

676.Quartz

677.Quinoline

678.Quinone [p-Benzoquinone]

679.R-11

680.Rags/Filters

681.Refractory Brick

682.Resin acids and Rosin acids, 

hydrogenated, esters with glycerol

683.Rosin

684.Salicyclic acid

685.Sand/Silica/Glass

686.sec-Butylamine

687.Selenium

688.Silane [Silicon hydride]

689.Silica gel

690.Silica [Silicon oxide]

691.Silica, amorphous [Silica, vitreous]

692.Silicon

693.Silicon carbide

694.Silicon tetrachloride

695.Silicone oil

696.Silicones, all

697.Siloxanes & silicones

698.Silver

699.Silvex [2,4,5-

Trichlorophenoxypropionic 

acid][2,4,5-TP]

700.Sodium

701.Sodium azide

702.Sodium bicarbonate

703.Sodium bromide

704.Sodium carbonate

705.Sodium chloride

706.Sodium cyanide

707.Sodium hydroxide

708.Sodium hypochlorite

709.Sodium iodide

710.Sodium lactate

711.Sodium lauryl sulfate

712.Sodium methylate [Sodium 

methoxide]

713.Sodium nitrate

714.Sodium phosphate dibasic

715.Sodium phosphate dibasic, 7-hydrate

716.Sodium phosphate monobasic

717.Sodium Salts Of Organic Acids

718.Sodium sulfate
169

719.Sodium trifluoroacetate

720.Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy 

aromatic

721.Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light 

aliphatic

722.Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light 

aromatics

723.Solvent naphtha (petroleum), medium 

aliphatic

724.Solvents

725.Soybean oil

726.Sterigmatocystin

727.Stoddard solvent

728.Streptomycin sulfate

729.Stryene-isoprene copolymer

730.Styrene-butadiene polymer

731.Styrene [Vinyl 

benzene][Phenylethylene]

732.Succinonitrile [Butanedinitrile]

733.Sulfate

734.Sulfide

735.Sulfur

736.Sulfur dioxide

737.Sulfuric acid

738.Talc

739.Tar

740.TCDFS

741.Terbufos

742.Terephthalic acid [1,4-

Benzenedicarboxyllic acid][p-Phthalic 

acid]

743.Terpene hydrocarbons

744.Terphenyl, hydrogenated

745.tert-Amyl alcohol [2-Methyl -2-

butanol][tert-Pentanol]

746.tert-Butanol [2-Methyl-2-propanol]

747.tert-Butyl phenol

748.Tetrabutyl ammonium hydroxide

749.Tetrachloroethylene 

[Perchloroethylene]

750.Tetraethylamine

751.Tetraethylene glycol Diacrylate

752.Tetraethylene pentamine

753.Tetrahydrofuran

754.Texanol [Propanoic acid, 2-methyl, 

monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-

pentanediol]

755.Thallium

756.Thioacetamide

757.Thiomethanol [Methyl 

mercaptan][Methanethiol]

758.Thiram [Thiuram][Tetramethylthiuram 

disulfide]

759.Tin

760.Tin Hydroxide

761.Titanium

762.Titanium dioxide

763.Titanium dioxide, anatase form

764.Toluene [Methylbenzene]

765.Toluenediamine [Diaminotoluene]

766.Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

767.Toxaphene [Chlorinated camphene]

768.trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

769.trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene [trans1,3-Dichloropropene]

770.trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene

771.Tributylamine

772.Trichloroethylene

773.Trichlorofluoromethane 

[Trichloromonofluoromethane][CFC11]

774.Trichloromethane-deuterated 

[Chloroform-D]

775.Triethylamine

776.Triethylamine Acetate

777.Triethylenetetramine [Trientine]

778.Trifluoroacetic acid

779.Trifluralin

780.Trimethyl phosphate

781.Trimethylated silica

782.Trimethylol propane acetate

783.Trimethylol propane diallyl ether

784.Trimethylol propane [2-Ethyl-2-

(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol]

785.Triphenyl phosphite

786.Tris Buffer

787.Tris Buffer W/EDTA 7-Molar Urea

788.Turpene resin

789.Turpentine

790.Ultimate residue

791.Undecane

792.Unknown Heavy Ends

793.Unleaded Gasoline, Rust, Scale, Water

794.Unspecified Hydrocarbons

795.Unspecified Organics

796.Urea

797.Urethane Polymer

798.V-PNB Furan

799.Vanadium

800.Vanadium Pentoxide

801.Vermiculite

802.Vinyl acetate

803.Vinyl chloride 

[Chloroethylene][Ethylene Chloride]

804.Vinyltrimethoxysilanes

805.Waste Oil

806.Water

807.White mineral oil [Paraffin oil]

808.Xylenes, mixed isomers [Xyenes, 

total]

809.Zinc

810.Zinc oxide

811.Zinc resinate

812.Zinc stearate

813.(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-1,2-benzenediol

814.(Z)(Z)-2,4-Hexadiene

815.>C6 Alkenes/Alkenes
170

Appendix B

Unit Costs for Estimating Affected Industry Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden

(Pre-Rule)

B0. Regulatory Burden Labor Wage Rates

Many of the baseline RCRA regulatory administrative burden elements consist of labor burden cost. Thus, a beginning point for 

estimating regulatory burden unit costs, is to obtain data on labor unit costs (i.e., hourly wage rates) to be applied in this RIA (see 

Exhibit B1 below). It should be noted that this RIA applies in Appendix C, these same labor unit costs for the purpose of estimating 

the administrative-(paperwork) type conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions.

Exhibit B1

Labor Wage Rates (2007 $/hour)

Note: These same labor wage rates are also applied in Appendix C to this RIA

A B C D E F (D x E)

Item Labor Category National Compensation Survey Category*

Labor Loading Multipliers 

(Benefits* + Overhead**)

Unloaded 

Labor Rate 

($/hour)***

Loaded Labor 

Rate

(2007 $/hour)

1 Office Manager Managers & Administrators, not elsewhere 

classified (nec)

43.4% + 43.6% = 87.0% $44.00 $90.61

2 Field/ Process Technician Furnace, kiln, & oven operators, except food 46.7% + 43.6% = 90.3% $14.91 $31.41

3 Project Manager Supervisors, production 43.4% + 43.6% = 87.0% $22.92 $47.20

4 Drafting Drafter 39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1% $22.20 $44.57

5 Staff Engineer Chemical Engineer 39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1% $38.87 $78.03

6 Legal Lawyer 39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1% $58.07 $116.58

7 Clerical Administrative support including clerical 42.6% + 43.6% = 86.2% $15.08 $30.88

Explanatory Notes:

* Source for benefits loading factor: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL 05-432, March 16, 2005.

** Source for overhead loading factor: Overhead consists of 12% G&A overhead + 16.6% fixed overhead + 5% insurance + 10% profit estimated using 

RACER 2005 defaults (Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm). 

General & administrative (G&A) cost overhead can include expenses such as human resources, payroll, accounting, sales personnel, executive salaries, legal 

fees, office supplies, equipment, communications, administrative buildings, office space, travel, subscriptions, and other overhead items related to 

administrative activities that support operating (production) labor. Fixed overhead can include a proportion of the cost of building services (e.g., medical, 

safety, recreation, general engineering, general plant maintenance, janitorial, and cafeteria), electricity, heating, interplant transportation, warehouses, 

shipping and receiving facilities, insurance, and other resources shared throughout the organization in support of operating labor.

*** Unloaded labor wage rate: US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics “National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United 

States”, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm
171

B1. EPA ID Number

This RCRA regulatory baseline cost was not estimated in this RIA, because this RIA assumes that obtaining a USEPA ID number is an 

historical one-time sunk cost for all affected RCRA-regulated facilities included in the datasets used for this RIA. This RIA does not 

attempt to simulate the future annual numbers of new facilities which may begin generating or recycling or disposing RCRA-regulated 

hazardous wastes, or which may begin generating or recycling DSW-excluded hazardous secondary materials.

B2. 40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs) & 262.34(d) (SQGs) & 264.16 (TSDFs) Personnel Training

Training includes costs for manifesting and hazardous materials handling training. These costs are assumed to be incurred for all 

LQGs and SQGs. Facilities classified as CESQGs were not assumed to have training costs for manifesting as these facilities are not 

required to manifest wastes generated or the resulting manifest reporting/storage requirements. CESQGs were excluded from 

hazardous materials handling training as described in 40 CFR 262.16 Subpart B. The hazardous materials handling training 

requirements for LQGs and SQGs include on-the-job training for emergency response and inspection of emergency response 

equipment.

· Manifest training is estimated to cost $335 per year (2007$). Training costs include an estimated 4.0 hours every 3-years for a 

process technician and a manager (assuming a 3-year capital recovery factor (CRF) at 7% is 0.38105). A turn over of the 

process technician is assumed to occur once every 4-years (assumed a 4-year CRF at 7% is 0.29523); seven years for the 

manager (assumed a 7 year CRF at 7% is 0.18555). Each year 0.6 hours are included for administrative requirements 

associated with the training (i.e., updating records, refresher/new class scheduling, etc.). The class training cost per trainee is 

estimated as $100 based on current pricing for the training services from on-line providers. This unit cost is based on USEPA 

Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January, 2008.

· Hazardous materials handling training is estimated to cost $847 per year for SQGs (2007$) and $2,726 per year for LQGs 

(2007$). Training costs for SQGs include an estimated eight hours per year each for a process technician and a manager. 

Training costs for LQGs include an estimated eight hours per year each for four process technicians, a manager, and a branch 

manager. Each year 0.6 hours are included for administrative requirements associated with the training (i.e., updating records, 

refresher/new class scheduling, etc.). The class training cost per trainee is estimated as $100 based on current pricing for the 

training services from on-line providers. This unit cost is based on USEPA Supporting Statement for Information Collection 

Request Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January, 2008.

B3. 40 CFR 262.40 (Generators), 263.22 (Transporters), & 264.74 (TSDFs) RCRA Recordkeeping

These costs are assumed to be direct labor costs for a staff engineer to conduct annual record keeping associated with RCRA 

hazardous waste management. Labor hours and labor cost (2007$) are estimated based on DPRA professional judgment:
172

· CESQGs = 3.0 hours at a cost of $234 per year per-facility

· SQGs = 6.0 hours at a cost of $468 per year per-facility

· LQGs = 9.0 hours at a cost of $702 per year per-facility

B4. Manifest Exception Reports

This RCRA regulatory baseline cost was not estimated in this RIA because it is an unpredictable, infrequent occurrence.

B5. 40 CFR 262.41 (LQGs) & 40 CFR 264.75 (TSDFs) RCRA Biennial Reporting

Biennial reporting as well as other generator recordkeeping and reporting is required for all LQGs and TSDFs. There are no reporting 

Biennial reporting requirements for SQG or CESQG facilities. Annual costs for biennial reporting is estimated to cost $364 for a LQG 

facility (2007$). The average facility is estimated to fill out 11 GM forms for the reporting cycle. The reporting labor is estimated at 

1.37 hours of a project manger level, 3.57 hours of a staff engineer level, and 0.61 hours of clerical labor. This activity along with 

manifest and annual reporting of recycling activity requirements covers the costs for documenting two other conditions - “no land 

placement” and “track offsite shipments”. This unit cost is based on Supporting Statement for USEPA Information Collection 

Request Nr. 976.13 “The 2007 Hazardous Waste Report,” September 18, 2007

B6. 40 CFR 264 Subparts I to DD (TSDF) Storage Requirements for Accumulated Hazardous Waste

This RIA assumes that plant and equipment investments for both hazardous waste and “hazardous secondary materials” storage are 

sunk costs, so no incremental effect (i.e., cost savings) is estimated in this RIA for the DSW final rule exclusions.

B7. 40 CFR 270 RCRA “Part B” TSDRF Permit Renewal Costs

Savings to onsite and offsite recyclers may result from no longer needing to renew their 40 CFR 270 RCRA hazardous waste TSDF 

permits. The maximum duration that a RCRA permit is valid is 10 years; therefore, a TSDRF facility is required to renew the 40 CFR 

270 “Part B” portion of the RCRA permit application a minimum of once every 10 years. Recyclers (TSDRFs) who become excluded 

from RCRA regulation under the DSW final rule have two options concerning not renewing their RCRA 40 CFR 270 TSDRF permits:

Option 1: the TSDRF may do nothing and just let their permit expire according to its current 10-year expiration date

Option 2: the TSDRF may file a termination request to the RCRA-authorized state agency.

This RIA does not assign a cost under option 2, so this RIA assumes option 1.
173

The Part B application is composed of a general facility section and the technology specific section for storage and/or disposal 

of the hazardous waste. Facilities reclaiming metals, solvents, or acids onsite may not require a TSDRF permit for their facility or for 

one or more particular recycling units at their facility affected by the DSW rule, as these wastes will no longer be considered solid 

wastes. Therefore, the facility would not be a RCRA TSDRF. The facilities potentially affected by the DSW rule would not need to 

resubmit the Part B application to renew the TSDRF RCRA permit.

Costs for preparing and renewing the RCRA Part B application are from Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA 

Noncompliance, USEPA Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Sept 1997, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0004.pdf. 

The general facility portion of the Part B application estimated cost was $43,693 ($56,559 inflated to 2007$; inflated from 1994$ to 

2002$ using a 1.127 multiplier and inflated from 2002$ to 2007$ using a 1.148646184 multiplier from: Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price 

Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economics Analysis last revised January 30, 2008. The technology specific section 

of the permit has estimated costs of $9,371 ($12,130 inflated to 2007$) for container systems and $8,780 ($11,365 inflated to 2007$) 

for tank systems.

The update of the Part B application is estimated to cost 25% to 50% the original preparation cost. All TSDRF facilities would 

be required to submit the general facility portion of the Part B application. In general, it is assumed that TSDRF facilities reclaiming 

metals would require the container systems technical requirements of the Part B application and the solvent and acid reclamation 

facilities would require the tank system technical requirements of the Part B application. Exhibit B3 below provides an estimate of the 

number of baseline (pre-rule) RCRA hazardous waste recycling facilities (TSDRFs) by material type which incur RCRA Subtitle C 

Part B permit renewal costs, and which may realize associated Part B cost savings under the DSW rule.

Exhibit B3

2003 Estimate of the Baseline (Pre-Rule) Count of Offsite Recycling Facilities

Which May Realize RCRA Subtitle C Part B Permit Paperwork Cost Savings as a Result of the DSW Rule

Row Paperwork Burden Impact Metric A. Metals Recovery B. Solvent Recovery C. Other Recovery

1 Number of Unique USEPA ID Numbers That Received Shipments of 

Hazardous Waste from Generators for Recycling (2003 Biennial Report)

403 296 155

2 Number of USEPA ID numbers with No Reported Address in RCRAInfo or 

2003/1999 Biennial Report Databases

44 16 17

3 Companies and number of USEPA ID numbers that are most likely transfer 

facilities (based on DPRA Inc professional judgment of data from Row 1 & 

Row 2 above):

52 130 25

4 Estimate #1 (maximum estimate):

Total Number of Recycling Facilities Based on Reported Shipments (i.e., 

Row 1 – Row 2 – Row 3)

307 150 113

5 Estimate #2 (minimum estimate):

Total Number of Recycling Facilities Based on Reported Waste Receipts 

from Offsite (source: USEPA 2003 RCRA Biennial Report, Exhibit 3.9)

106 47 40

6 Average annualized potential RCRA Part B permit renewal cost savings 

per-recycling facility (see text above this Exhibit for data source; the range 

$2,445 to 

$4,890/year per-

$2,418 to 

$4,836/year per-

$2,418 to 

$4,836/year per-
174

Exhibit B3

2003 Estimate of the Baseline (Pre-Rule) Count of Offsite Recycling Facilities

Which May Realize RCRA Subtitle C Part B Permit Paperwork Cost Savings as a Result of the DSW Rule

Row Paperwork Burden Impact Metric A. Metals Recovery B. Solvent Recovery C. Other Recovery

reflects the 25% to 50% data source reference range); range midpoint 

applied in this RIA

facility

[midpoint= $3,668]

facility

[mp= $3,627]

facility

[mp=$3,627]

7 Potential RCRA Subtitle C Part B Permit Renewal Annual Cost Savings:

Min estimate ((Row 5)x(minimum of Row 6 in same column))

Max estimate ((Row 4)x(maximum of Row 6 in same column))

Range midpoint applied in this RIA

$0.26 to $1.50 

million/year

[mp= $0.88 mill/yr]

$0.11 to $0.73 

million/year

[mp= $0.42 mill/yr]

$0.10 to $0.55 

million/year

[mp= $0.32 mill/yr]

B8. 40 CFR 262 Subpart B (Generators), 263 Subpart B (Transporters) & 264 Subpart E (TSDFs) RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Shipment Manifests (EPA Form 8700-22)

In general, under the current hazardous waste regulations, wastes are tracked through the use of a hazardous waste manifest which 

accompanies each waste shipment. Manifesting costs were estimated using the Supporting Statement for Information Collection 

Request (ICR) Number 801.15 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System.", December 30, 2004. Costs were estimated using the labor rates in Exhibit B1 of this RIA 

Appendix, and miscellaneous costs were inflated to 2007$. The manifesting cost incurred by the generator per manifest was 

determined to be $48 for SQGs and LQGs (2007$). The cost for non-hazardous shipping papers under a reclamation agreement were 

estimated to be comparable to a SQG’s shipping RCRA manifests. All pre rule shipments were assumed to require hazardous waste 

manifests (including same-NAICS recycling transportation shipments). Post-rule shipments are all assumed to require non-hazardous 

shipping papers, except for the portion of the residuals assumed to be characteristically hazardous (95% of metals recovery residuals, 

85% of solvent recovery residuals, and 75% of acid regeneration residuals).

B9. Preparedness & Prevention

Preparedness and prevention costs are included in personnel training (Appendix B, section B2), contingency plan (Appendix B, section 

B10), and emergency plan (Appendix B, section B11).

B10. 40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs) & 264 Subpart D (TSDFs) Contingency Plan

Contingency planning costs are estimated to cover the requirements as stated in 40 CFR 264 Subpart D relating to the development of 
175

TSDF contingency plans. LQGs are required by 40 CFR 262.34(g)(4)(C)(2)(v) to prepare and maintain the same contingency plan as 

TSDFs. The cost includes labor burden of eight hours for a staff engineer and 3.36 hours for clerical support for an average perfacility expense of $733/year (2007$). This cost is incurred on an annual basis and is based on USEPA Supporting Statement for 

Information Collection Request Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January 2008.

B11. 40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs), 262.34(d) (SQGs) & 264 Subpart D (TSDFs) Emergency Plan

Emergency plan costs are estimated to cover the requirements as stated in 40 CFR 264 Subpart D relating to the development of a 

contingency plan. LQGs and SQGs are required to prepare and maintain a emergency plan. The cost for a LQG facility includes labor 

burden of 4.4 hours for a staff engineer, 0.34 hours for legal review, and 2.16 hours for clerical support, and $23 in copying and 

postage, for a total expense of $481 (2007$). The cost for a SQG facility includes labor burden of 1.1 hours for a legal review, 0.1 for 

a managerial review, and $5 in copying and postage, for an average per-facility expense of $94 per year (2007$). This cost is incurred 

on an annual basis. This unit cost is based on USEPA “Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10 

Hazardous Waste Generator Status”, January 2008.

B12. Closure

See Appendix C, Section C9.

B13. Post-Closure

See Appendix C, Section C9.

B14. Accumulation Time

Unit costs are a combination of hazardous waste disposal, recycling, transport and testing costs presented in Appendix D, Sections D1 

and D3. Because hazardous residuals from DSW-excluded recycling still must be managed in an environmentally-responsible manner, 

this RIA assumes that residuals are managed in RCRA Subtitle C units. Consequently, this baseline cost element nets-out the 

estimated future annual cost for managing as RCRA hazardous wastes, the quantities of future annual recycling residuals.
176

Appendix C

Unit Costs for Affected Industries to Meet the 12 Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Post-Rule)

C1. No Speculative Accumulation

The generator status of a facility may change when recycled wastes are no longer counted as hazardous waste under the DSW 

exclusion. The non-recycled quantity of hazardous waste a facility generates will determine its post-rule generator status and influence 

its accumulation time requirements. A change in generator status from being a LQG to either SQG, to CESQG, or to non-generator 

status, results in longer accumulation time for residuals and secondary materials from 90 days for LQGs to 180/270 for SQGs to 360 

days as the assumed time limit based on speculative accumulation requirements for CESQGs. The extended accumulation time 

translates into fewer shipments, fuller truck loads, and a decreased frequency of minimum disposal/recycling and transportation 

charges that result from acceptance of small loads of wastes/secondary materials.

Under this existing rule, a material is accumulated speculatively if the person accumulating it cannot show that the material is 

potentially recyclable and has a feasible means of being recycled. The person accumulating the material must show that during a 

calendar year (beginning January 1) the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at 

least 75% by weight or volume of the amount of that material at the beginning of the period. This provision already applies to 

secondary materials not otherwise considered to be wastes when recycled, such as materials used as ingredients or commercial product 

substitutes, materials that are recycled in a closed loop production process, or unlisted sludges and byproducts being reclaimed. These 

restrictions on speculative accumulation have been an important element of the RCRA recycling regulations since they were 

promulgated on January 4, 1985. In the cost estimates of this RIA, it is assumed that recycled materials are shipped offsite at least 

once per year.

To estimate the impacts associated with changes in accumulation time, the following cost elements need to be estimated:

· Offsite metal recovery, solvent recovery, other recovery (represented by acid regeneration as a proxy), and residual hazardous 

and nonhazardous landfill costs on a per ton or minimum charge basis to estimate cost savings resulting from avoided 

minimum recycling process and handling charges because larger truck shipments are being received and processed;38 and

· Disposal transportation, recycling transportation, and waste characterization testing unit costs and minimum charges to estimate 

cost savings resulting from fewer shipments and avoided minimum transportation charges because larger loads are shipped.

Unit costs are a combination of disposal, recycling, transport and testing costs presented in Appendix D, Sections D1 and D3.

38 Note that onsite recovery cost estimates are not needed to estimate implementation impacts for currently regulated hazardous waste recycling that becomes exempt. 

Onsite recovery cost estimates are presented in another chapter because they are needed to conduct a “breakeven test” to determine which facilities may construct new

recovery units onsite under the DSW final rule exclusions.
177

C2. Generator Notifies USEPA Initially & Every 2-Years

Based on DPRA professional judgment, costs were estimated for generators to complete an initial and biennial (every two years) renotification of RCRA exclusion for their recycled wastes. This RIA assumes that each notification (i.e., initial and subsequent biennial 

re-notification) requires a labor burden of:

· 0.64 hours (38 minutes) project manager

· 1.06 hours (64 minutes) staff engineer

· 0.14 hours (8 minutes) clerical support

for an average per-facility labor burden of 1.84 hours (110 minutes) per notification action. Multiplying these labor hour estimates by

the respective 2007 wage rates from Exhibit B1 yields an average cost estimate of $122 for each notification action (2007$). An 

additional $5 per notification in miscellaneous copies and postage cost is also included. This RIA converts this per notification cost 

into an average annualized cost by dividing by two years (i.e., ($122 per notification action) / (notification required initially and every

two years) = $61/year per facility).

Note: The assumed identical average labor time per-facility for both initial notification and re-notification may be a source of 

cost over-estimation in this RIA for this condition (i.e., a source of industry net cost savings under-estimation), as evidenced by two 

alternative estimates of notification labor time contained in two relevant existing “Information Collection Request” (ICR) supporting

statements associated with two existing RCRA-related notification forms:

· ICR for RCRA “Notification of Regulated Waste Activity” (EPA Form 8700-12; “Instructions and Form” document dated July

2006 at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/form8700/8700-12.pdf. This ICR estimates “The reporting burden for 

information collection requirements associated with initial notification requirements is estimated to be approximately 2.00 

hours [120 minutes]. The burden estimate includes time for reading the regulations and preparing and submitting the initial 

notification. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with subsequent notification is estimated 

to be approximately 1.00 hour [60 minutes]. The burden estimate includes time for reading the regulations, preparing and 

submitting a subsequent notification.”

· ICR for the “RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form“ (EPA Form 8700-13 A/B, revised Oct 2005; available in docket ID nr. 

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0003 at http://www.regulations.gov): This ICR estimates 20 minutes to prepare a Site ID Form and 10 

minutes to update it. These numbers are probably more appropriate for this DSW final rule exclusion condition (rather than

the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity ICR), because the burden estimates in the Biennial Report ICR reflect an 

assumption that reporters on a regular submittal cycle will develop efficiencies from submitting the Site ID form, unlike the 

Notification ICR, which does not include this assumption. One particular efficiency is that, with notifications submitted on a 

regular cycle, there will be fewer updates needed per submittal and hence less time burden in comparison with notifications 

occurring more or less randomly as is the case with notifications addressed by the Notification ICR. Most of the data elements 

are easily collected (e.g., name, address, NAICS code, the type of exclusion, etc.) and information on regularly submitted forms 

will be pre-populated and not need much, if any, updating from cycle to cycle. There also will be little or no learning curve for 

sites from cycle to cycle.
178

C3. Notification Signed by Corporate Official

As an option in addition to the above described one time notification of exclusion, it is assumed that certification of the one-time 

notification of exclusion will take extra time for the generator’s staff engineer to set up a meeting and brief the generator’s office 

manager on the new DSW exclusion rule and the implications of his/her signature on the one-time notification. This cost is a one-time 

initial cost, unless changes occur in the name, address or USEPA ID number of the facility or a change in the type of material(s) 

recycled, which would require submission of a revised notice with new certification (frequency and annual count of future recertifications not estimated in this RIA). This RIA estimates an average per-facility labor time burden of:

· 0.5 hour (30 minutes) office manager

· 1.0 hour (60 minutes) staff engineer

to acquire a signature by a corporate official, totaling 1.5 hours (90 minutes) average added time per notification for certification. 

Multiplying the labor hour estimates by the respective 2007 labor wage rates from Exhibit B1 yields an average added cost estimate of 

$123 for certification of the one-time notification (2007$). If added to the average $122 cost per facility for a one-time notification as 

estimated above, yields a one-time certified notification cost estimate of $251 per facility. Analogous to the method applied in item 

C2 above, this RIA converts this $123 certification cost into an average annualized cost by dividing by two years: (i.e., ($123 per 

certification action) / (certification required initially and every two years) = $62/year per facility).

C4. Generator Submits Petition to USEPA to Demonstrate Materials are Not Solid Wastes

A petition to be granted a variance from classification as a solid waste was estimated using the CFR 260.31(b) and 260.33(a) rules 

regulating fertilizer byproducts as a proxy. The labor burden was estimated using labor hour estimates from the "Supporting Statement 

for USEPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.14 Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions", September 13, 2004 

and the labor rates listed previously. A total labor burden of 146 hours for a staff engineer multiplied by the average labor wage rate 

for 2007 (from Exhibit B1), plus additional $22 for copying, shipping and communication cost was assumed, yielding an average cost 

estimate of $11,415 per variance. The labor burden includes presentation of the following elements: economic viability of the product; 

industry wide prevalence of the practice; the handling of the material prior to reclamation; the time line of storage, handling, 

reclamation, and reuse; describe reclamation location and process; the reuse process; describe the reclaimer/recycler; and any

additional relevant information.

C5. Maintain Records of All Offsite Shipments for Recycling

Cost for recording and maintaining records of recycling activities are included in the general administrative duties described above. 
179

Additional record keeping costs for the DSW rule are not anticipated.

C6. Confirmation of Shipment Receipt

Costs for generators maintaining records of offsite recycling shipments and confirmation receipts are included in recordkeeping costs 

described in Appendix B, Section B2.

C7. Recycler Has Liability Insurance for Accidents

This RIA assumes no additional costs will be incurred because all affected industrial facilities are assumed to currently have liability

insurance for accidents as part of standard industry practice.

C8. Recycler Has Financial Assurance for Closure

To estimate this condition, financial assurance costs were estimated in this RIA using the OSW’s Sept 2000 "Unit Cost Compendium" 

(UCC)39. The costs to determine the financial assurance mechanism, develop the financial test, setup the surety bond, and estimate the 

required funds necessary were annualized over a ten year period using a capital recovery factor at 15% (i.e., 0.19925). The costs were 

inflated from 1999$ to 2005$ using a CPI factor of 1.194. The annualized set up costs is estimated as $384 (2005$). An additional fee 

for the surety bond is estimated to cost 1.5% of the value of the following average closure cost assumptions per-facility, and a $826 

(2005$) annual fee for the bond. Costs inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product, Bureau of Economics Analysis last revised January 30, 2008 of 1.0591. (Note: the “RACER” data reference cited 

belw = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: 

http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm):

o Metals recycler $3,340: Source: RACER 2005: Two 20 foot by 20 foot by 10 feet high holding pads one open side, a cost 

of high pressure wash at 137.5 SF/hour, $1.76/square foot, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

o Solvent recycler $2,266: Source: RACER 2005: 2 1000 gallon AST holding tanks, triple rinse two 55 gallon drums, 

associated piping. Pressure Cleaning, 40 SF per hour, $4.62/sf, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

o Acid recycler $2,266: Source: RACER 2005: 2 1000 gallon AST holding tanks, triple rinse two 55 gallon drums, 

associated piping. Pressure Cleaning, 40 SF per hour, $4.62/sf, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

For facilities currently recycling RCRA hazardous waste, the estimate for the added cost of requiring financial assurance is estimated

39 UCC = OSW’s 30 Sept 2000 “Unit Cost Compendium” (121 pages) is available to the public as document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0429 at the 

Federal government docket website: http://www.regulations.gov.
180

to be an average cost of $1,397/year plus 1.5% of closure costs. Off-site recyclers are assumed to pass through 100 percent of these 

costs back to their customers. On average, it is estimated that 6.5 generators ship waste to each recovery facility based on 2003 

Biennial Report data. Off-site financial assurance and closure costs are divided by 6.5 to estimate the cost passed through to the 

generator.

C9. Materials Must be Contained

This RIA assumes no additional costs because assumes all affected facilities will ensure containment (a) to avoid CERCLA liability

costs, and (b) to avoid RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills.

C10.Residuals Derived from Recycling Managed in Environmentally-Protective Manner

This RIA assumes that future annual generation of hazardous residuals from DSW-excluded recycling processes will be managed as 

RCRA hazardous wastes, according to the baseline RCRA regulatory requirements itemized in Chapter 6 and in Appendix B (section 

B14). Therefore, this RIA assumes this exclusion condition represents baseline requirements, and nets-out the continued future cost 

for managing recycling residuals as RCRA hazardous wastes, from the Chapter 6 baseline cost that will be eliminated.

C11. Generator Exercises Due Diligence Reasonable Efforts to Ensure Offsite Recycling is Legitimate

A condition for Exclusion 2 is that generators need to exercise due diligence or reasonable efforts to ensure recycling is legitimate. 

This RIA’s due diligence unit cost estimate is based on the assumption that the due diligence condition is somewhat similar, but not 

identical, to real estate due diligence or facility environmental compliance reviews, but different in that the generator would not be 

required to conduct an actual facility visit and could rely on information provided by the recycler (e.g., company brochures) and 

publicly-available information. On average, each due diligence event is estimated to require a labor burden of 20 hours of a staff 

engineer at the generator facility, plus a facility environmental data report, per each due diligence event:

o Labor: The generator’s labor cost per event is estimated at ((20 staff engineer hours/event) x ($78.03/hour labor rate from 

Exhibit B1)) = $1,661 per event.

o Report: The facility environmental data report summarizes various listings of the recycling facility in federal, state, and local 

environmental files and databases at an estimated cost of $100 per event.40

40 Firstar report is quoted to DPRA Inc at $95 (09/01/2005). EDR report quoted to DPRA Inc at $105 (09/01/2005).
181

For purpose of this RIA, an average annual of one due diligence review event is assumed to occur for each affected generator facility, 

at an estimated average unit cost of $1,761 (2007$) per generator facility (i.e., $1,661 labor + $100 report). However, because of the 

fact that industrial companies often enter into multi-year contracts and business relationships with their suppliers and vendors, this unit 

cost assumption may be over-estimated in this RIA based on the annually recurring assumption per generator. In addition to initial 

audits, companies often perform repeat audits on a regular schedule. Although the exact period of time between audits can vary

depending on factors such as the nature and complexity of the vendor’s operations, the relationship between the two companies, or the 

generator’s access to audits performed by trade groups or consortiums, re-audits are usually performed every one to five years.41 The 

midpoint of this re-audit frequency range is every 3-years, suggesting that this RIA’s annual re-audit assumption over-estimates the 

average annual unit cost per generator by 300% (i.e., (3-years)/(1-year)).

On the other hand, data collected by OSW from organizations which offer environmental facility auditing services suggest that 

the per-event average unit cost could be higher than the $1,661/event unit cost estimate of this RIA, ranging between $2,000 to $8,000 

per due diligence event.42 Applying the midpoint annual re-audit frequency of 3-years per generator, to the $2,000 to $8,000 per event 

unit cost range, provides an average annualized unit cost range of $670 to $2,670 per year per generator. The midpoint of this range is

$1,670 per year per generator, which suggests that the $1,661/year per generator unit cost estimate developed and applied in this RIA 

is a reasonable assumption.

C12.Export of Materials for Recycling Requires Notice & Consent & Annual Reporting

Costs incurred by generator to notify foreign recycling facility of the requirements of the DSW exclusions. This RIA does not estimate 

the annual fraction (percentage) of affected hazardous secondary materials which may be exported for recycling. However, this is a 

baseline RCRA Subtitle C requirement (40 CFR 262.53 & 262.56) so no incremental cost impact is expected.

41 Source: page 15 of OSW’s study “An Assessment of Good Current Practices For Recycling Of Hazardous Secondary Materials”, 22 Nov 2006 

(http://www.regulations.gov).

42 Source: pages 16-17 of OSW’s study “An Assessment of Good Current Practices For Recycling Of Hazardous Secondary Materials” (22 Nov 2006; 

http://www.regulations.gov). The most commonly cited organization in the materials OSW examined and among those environmental auditing services 

companies interviewed for this Nov 2006 study was CHWMEG. Incorporated in 1995, CHWMEG describes itself as “a non-profit trade association comprised 

of manufacturing and other ‘industrial’ companies interested in efficiently managing the waste management aspects of their environmental stewardship 

programs.” In 2005, CHWMEG conducted audits of more than 225 waste and recycling facilities. The fee for annual membership to CHWMEG is $2,200 per 

facility and each waste facility or recycling facility audit report typically costs an additional $600 to $850. The audit reports evaluate risk in ten areas and provide 

quantitative risk scores for environmental, operational, and financial risk, but they do not pass or fail a facility or recommend whether or not the members should 

send waste to the facility. CHWMEG members must use the information in the reports to determine whether the vendor actually meets their particular standards 

for handling waste and to decide whether or not to use a certain vendor. Applying an average annual re-audit frequency of 3-years to the CHWMEG unit cost 

yields $/year per generator (i.e., ($2,200/year) + ($600 to $850 per event)/(3 years per event) = $2,400 to $2,480 per year per generator. This unit cost is higher 

than the $1,661 per year per generator estimated and applied in this RIA; however, the CHWMEG audit cost includes services (e.g., site visits by generators to 

recyclers, and examination by generators of the recycler’s financial information) beyond what the DSW rule requires for “due diligence” reasonable efforts.
182

Appendix D

Unit Costs for Industrial Disposal & Industrial Recycling

This appendix summarizes methods for estimating several categories of unit costs: Industrial disposal, onsite and offsite industrial 

recycling, managing industrial recycling residuals, and, finally, managing and generation of recycling residual waste.

D1. Industrial Disposal Unit Costs

Unit costs for the year 2005 were reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering 

Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 

commercial landfill disposal costs. These unit costs were inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using the GDP Price Deflator from 

January 2008 (1.059):

· The cost reported in ECHOS was inflated to $223 per ton for bulk hazardous waste with stabilization (2007$).

· RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous waste commercial landfill costs were estimated using the National Solid Wastes Management 

Association 2004 annual survey43.The US national average tipping fee for non-hazardous disposal was reported as $37 per ton 

in bulk quantities inflated to 2007 dollars.

· Earl Finnder of the US Filter Company estimated that electroplaters pay approximately $260 to $300 per ton for Subtitle C 

landfill disposal.44

The RACER 2005 unit cost was used as an average disposal cost for hazardous waste. The RACER 2005 disposal cost for hazardous 

is presented as a 30-city average of US major cities. The landfill disposal costs assumed under baseline are presented in Exhibit D1 

below. A minimum charge for hazardous waste disposal is estimated as half a full load (nine tons) at $2,004. No minimum charge is 

assumed for the disposal of waste in RCRA Subtitle D landfills as there is no regulation of non-hazardous waste storage times; 

therefore, each non-hazardous waste load will be a full 18-ton load (see Exhibit D1 for unit costs). The cost estimates for landfill 

management are overstated, particularly for smaller generators, because other forms of hazardous waste are usually generated by a 

single facility. These wastes may be shipped with the reclaimable waste to the landfill in the same truck if the wastes are compatible, 

resulting in lower per-unit transportation costs due to a generator’s ability to take advantage of economies-of-scale and avoid incurring 

the minimum landfill charge on multiple loads.

43 National Solid Wastes Management Association (http://www.nswma.org) 2005 tip fee survey (2004 data) National Average.

44 Telephone communication with Mr. Earl Finnder, US Filter, October 2001.
183

Exhibit D1

RCRA Subtitle C & Subtitle D Landfill Unit Costs (2007$)

Cost Element ($/ton)

Subtitle C Landfill with Stabilization 1$223/ton ($2,004 minimum charge)

Subtitle D Landfill 2$37/ton

1 Costs inflated from 2005 dollars to 2007 dollars.

2 Costs inflated from 2004 dollars to 2007 dollars.

· Transportation Costs

Exhibit D2 below presents estimates of hazardous waste transportation costs (excluding manifesting costs which are estimated 

separately) based on unit costs reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating software for van trailers and tanker trucks (RACER = 

Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm). 

These unit costs were inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using the GDP Price Deflator from January 2008 (1.059). Costs are based on 

distance and maximum truck load size of 18 tons for van trailers and 5,000 gallons for tanker trucks.45 A minimum of four loads per 

year is assumed based on the maximum accumulation period of 90 days for hazardous waste landfill disposal and 180 days for 

recycling based on accumulation time regulations. Otherwise, the number of loads per year is calculated by dividing the total annual 

generation quantity by the assumed maximum truck load size of 18 tons. The RACER 2005 shipment fee of $1,000 (2007$) is used to 

determine transportation unit costs below 200 miles for hazardous waste. For example, the transportation cost for shipping waste 100 

miles is calculated by dividing the minimum shipment fee by 100 miles ($1,000/100 miles = $10.00/mile). Shipping distances vary

when shipping to Subtitle C landfills (338 mile average) compared to recycling facilities (521 mile average). The distances presented 

reflect estimates for shipments of F006 wastes from the USEPA December 2001 draft report, Evaluation of Cost and Economic 

Impacts of F006 Recycling Rulemaking Options, for landfill and metals recovery facilities as a proxy for the transportation distances 

within the same industry (4-digit NAICS code) and residual disposal.

Non-hazardous waste transportation costs (excluding manifesting costs) also were estimated based on bulk hazardous waste 

transportation cost reported in RACER 2005. Costs are based on distance and maximum load size of 18 tons. Due to the relatively

close transportation distances estimated for RCRA Subtitle D landfills, a unit cost of $3.30 per mile ($0.183 per ton-mile) was used. 

The transportation cost is estimated to be less than the hazardous transportation unit cost due to the regularly scheduled, full 18-ton, 

bulk non-hazardous waste shipments. For non-hazardous waste and post-rule recycling, no minimum number of loads is assumed. 

The number of shipments per year is calculated by dividing the total annual generation quantity by the assumed maximum truck load 

45 USEPA’s Common Sense Initiative Report indicates 15 tons-per-truck load size and ECHOS 2001 indicates a maximum truck load size of 18 tons. RACER 

indicates a tanker truck capacity of 5,000 gallons.
184

size of 18 tons.

Exhibit D2

Waste Transportation Unit Costs (2007$)

Cost Element Baseline

Van Trailer Tanker Truck

Loading/Unloading

Hazardous Waste Minimum Charge

Hazardous Waste Shipping

200-299 miles

300-399 miles

400-499 miles

500-599 miles

600-699 miles

700-799 miles

800-899 miles

900-999 miles

1,000+ miles

Non-Hazardous Waste

$37.89/ton

$1,063/shipment

$4.06/mile

$3.76/mile

$3.39/mile

$3.21/mile

$3.16/mile

$3.03/mile

$3.03/mile

$3.31/mile

$3.17/mile

$3.30/mile

$50.20/ton

$1,000/shipment

$3.77/mile

$3.26/mile

$3.31/mile

$3.40/mile

$3.21/mile

$3.13/mile

$3.09/mile

$3.08/mile

$3.04/mile

POTW discharge

Weighted transportation costs are presented in Exhibits D3 and D4:

· Transport to Subtitle C landfills: The weighted average transportation unit cost to Subtitle C landfill is $6.34/mile and the 

weighted average distance is 338 miles.

· Transport to solvent recycling: The weighted average transportation unit cost to a solvent recovery facility is $10.03/mile 

and the weighted average distance is 521 miles.

· Transport to Subtitle D landfills: The assumed average transportation unit cost to a Subtitle D landfill is $3.30/mile and an 

average distance of 50 miles.

· Transport to Fuel blending: The assumed average transportation unit cost to a fuel blending facility is $4.24/mile and 

an average distance of 577 miles.

· Transport to acid recovery: The assumed average transportation unit cost to an acid recovery/acid neutralization 

facility is $4.10/mile and an average distance of 405 miles.

· Transport to metals recycling: The estimates for metals recovery distances from facilities identified in the USEPA report 

“Evaluation of Cost and Economic Impacts of F006 Recycling Rulemaking Options” from 

December 2001 were used to model recycling and RCRA Subtitle C landfill distances.
185

Transportation distances for fuel blending, and acid recovery/acid neutralization were determined after review of 1999 Biennial Report 

data of facilities shipping the wastes and the receiving facilities. A distribution for shipping was generated using potential 

transportation ranges of 250, 350, 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, 950, and 1050 miles:

· For waste streams with facilities tending to ship within-state the transportation distribution was skewed to the 250 and 350 mile 

range.

· For waste streams with facilities tending to ship out-of-state the transportation distribution was skewed to the 450 and 650 mile 

range.

An average distance of 1,000 miles for incineration managed waste streams was estimated due to the limited number of facilities 

available providing the service. Based on a review of the 1999 Biennial Report data, no incineration managed waste streams were 

shipped within state.

Exhibit D3

Weighted Average Transportation Unit Costs to Subtitle C Landfills for SIC 3471 

Generators (2007$)

Percentile

(%)

Distance to Landfill or 

Stabilization for Top 

95% of Waste Shipped

(miles, n = 75)

Average Distance 

per 10th Percentile

(miles)

Weighted 

Distance to 

Subtitle C 

Landfill 

(miles)

Unit Cost

($/mile)

Weighted 

Unit Price 

($/mile)

0 38 --- --- --- ---

10 129 83.5 8.35 $13.48 $1.35

20 147 138 13.8 $8.16 $0.82

30 166 156.5 15.65 $7.19 $0.72

40 175 170.5 17.05 $6.60 $0.66

50 234 204.5 20.45 $5.50 $0.55

60 283 258.5 25.85 $4.98 $0.50

70 348 315.5 31.55 $4.52 $0.45

80 434 391 39.1 $4.37 $0.44

90 636 535 53.5 $3.65 $0.37

100 1627 1,131.5 113.15 $3.38 $0.34

Total = 338.45 $6.34
186

Exhibit D4

Weighted Average Transportation Unit Costs to Metals Recovery (Secondary Smelting) 

for SIC 3471 Generators1(2007$)

Percentile

(%)

Distance to Metals 

Recovery Facilities for 

Top 95% of Waste 

Shipped

(miles, n = 51)

Average Distance 

per 10th Percentile

(miles)

Weighted 

Distance to 

Metals 

Recovery

(miles)

Unit Cost

($/mile)

Weighted 

Unit Price 

($/mile)

0 7 --- --- --- ---

10 32 19.5 1.95 $56.78 $5.68

20 193 112.5 11.25 $9.84 $0.98

30 231 212 21.2 $5.22 $0.52

40 329 280 28.0 $4.35 $0.43

50 372 350.5 35.05 $4.23 $0.42

60 481 427 42.7 $3.91 $0.39

70 567 524 52.4 $3.69 $0.37

80 846 706.5 70.65 $3.43 $0.34

90 1,253 1,049.5 104.95 $3.20 $0.32

100 1,802 1,527.5 152.75 $3.13 $0.31

Total = 520.9 $10.03

1 These values were used as a proxy for metals recovery distances and transportation unit costs.

· Waste Characterization Testing

Ongoing characterization of hazardous waste and recycled materials is estimated to include sampling labor burden and waste 

characterization analytical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor. The 

analytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007$). One sample is 

collected for each waste or recycled materials load for a total cost of $346 (2007$). Note: RACER = Remedial Action Cost 

Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm.
187

D2. Offsite Industrial Recycling Unit Costs

· Offsite Metal Recycling

Recycling cost estimates were taken from a previous USEPA rulemaking titled Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule for a 

180-Day Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, 12 Jan 2000; 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0001.pdf. In that RIA recycling costs for recovering metals from F006 

wastewater treatment sludges were estimated from 1993 cost data provided in Exhibit 7-1 of Cushnie, George C., CAI Engineering, 

"Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations," prepared for NCMS/NAMF.

Exhibit D12 below presents the estimate from the above report for the metal recycling unit costs being paid by F006 sludge 

generators. Transportation costs were subtracted from the estimated recycling costs. 1997 unit transportation prices reported in 

Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS), Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Unit Price, 4th Annual Edition, 

published by R.S. Means and Delta Technologies Group, Inc., 1998, were used to estimate transportation costs in that analysis. 

Differences in average unit recycling costs in Exhibit D12 are the result of variability in the amount various recyclers charge 

generators. A major factor contributing to the differences in recycling costs is metal content (i.e., concentration and type of metals 

present in the waste). The generally lower costs for the small facilities that recover metals may be due to the fact that these facilities 

tend to generate single-metal wastes which are more amenable to recycling.

In OSW’s F006 180-Day Accumulation Final Rule 2000 RIA (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0001.pdf), 

an average unit recycling cost of $0.20/lb was assumed as an upper-end typical price charged by a metals recovery facility based on the 

1993 data provided in Cushnie. One recycler that was contacted provided an average 1998 price of approximately $0.10/lb. For that 

analysis, impacts are evaluated based on average recycling prices ranging from $0.10/lb to $0.20/lb ($200/ton to $400/ton).46 In some 

cases, when the metal value is very high, the charges can be somewhat lower.47 Minimum charges are at least sometimes avoided 

when the recycler actually picks up the F006 electroplating wastewater treatment sludge directly from the generator.48 For purposes of 

this rule making, a unit cost of $345 per ton (2007$) is assumed for commercial metals recovery. This value is the mid-point of the 

estimated range of $200/ton to $400/ton range inflated from 2002$ to 2007$. The commercial unit cost is assumed to include all 

capital and annual expenditures necessary for the metals recovery system. Metal salvage value was considered separate from the 

recycling unit cost.

No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the same company. It is assumed that transfers are 

typically occurring within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum fee, unlike a commercial metal 

recovery facility. A commercial offsite metal recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately half of a full load (nine 

tons) for accepting small waste quantities for recycling. The minimum charge is estimated to be $3,101 (9 tons x $345/ton). The 

minimum charge equates to $0.17/lb for a 9-ton load, $0.52 per pound for a 3-ton load, and $1.55 per pound for a 1-ton load which are 

46 The estimates of average recycling costs were confirmed by industry contacts (Jarvis, 1999, Personal Communication, Eritech, North Carolina; Anonymous, 1999, 

Personal Communication, Sun-Glo Pating, Florida ).

47 Shields, 1999, Personal Communication, American Nickeloid, Illinois.

48 Jarvis, 1999, Personal Communication, Eritech, North Carolina; and Anonymous, 1999, Personal Communication, Dearborn Brass, Texas.
188

in the range of values reported by F006 recyclers in Exhibit D12 if the unit costs are inflated from 1993$ to 2007$. A minimum 

recycling charge is applied in the cost estimate if the generator ships less than 9 tons per truck load to the recycling facility at the end 

of its accumulation time period. Changes in generator status pre- and post-rule will allow longer accumulation time periods resulting 

in larger truck loads and fewer minimum charges. Shipments above 9 tons are charged $345/ton.

Exhibit D12

Estimated Offsite Metals Recycling Costs (1993$)

Transport

average unit cost

Offsite Recycling

average unit cost Generator Type* & Waste 

Shipment Average Size

No. of unit 

cost data 

points

Average 

truckload size 

(tons/load) ($/lb) ($/ton) ($/lb) ($/ton)

Small LQG - small shipment

(<13.2 tons/year)

31 1 ton $0.49 $980 $0.02 $40

Small LQG - large shipment

(13.2 to <60 tons/year)

36 3 tons $0.11 $220 $0.20 $400

Large LQG shipment

(60 tons/year or greater)

20 9 tons $0.06 $120 $0.17 $340

Average of three shipment size categories = (1+3+9)/3 =

4.3 tons

$0.15 $300 $0.22 $440

Explanatory Notes:

* Assumes all facilities are LQGs and ship 4 times per year. This data may include SQGs which ship at a maximum of 2 times per 

year. If these facilities are SQGs, the average transport unit cost is $0.25/lb and average recycling unit cost is $0.26/lb Assumptions:

Step 1:Used 1993 cost data provided in Exhibit 7-1 of Cushnie, George C., CAI Engineering, "Pollution Prevention and Control 

Technology for Plating Operations," prepared for NCMS/NAMF.

Step 2:Eliminated seven data records from Cushnie that do not provide either shipping distance, quantity shipped, or unit cost. Based 

on inspection, four records eliminated as statistical outliers.

Step 3:Assumed the following distances: 

Category < 500 miles = 250 miles, 

Category 500 to 1,000 miles = 750 miles, 

Category 1,000 to 1,500 miles = 1,250 miles, 

Category 1,500 to 2,000 miles = 1,750 miles, and 

Category 2,000 to 2,500 miles = 2,250 miles.

Step 4:Assumed LQG and 90-day storage if > 26,400 lbs generated annually.

Step 5:Assumed a full shipment size of 15 tons based upon USEPA’s Common Sense Initiative report.

Step 6:Assumed minimum of 4 shipments/year (i.e., 90-day storage limit) for LQGs.

Step 7:Used 1998 ECHOS transportation unit price estimates ($/mile) for van trailer transportation of hazardous waste. Assume 

transportation prices have not changed significantly since 1993 given that increased labor costs are likely being balanced by 

historically low fuel costs.

Step 8:Used 1998 ECHOS minimum charge for van trailer transportation of small hazardous waste loads of $732 per shipment as a 

minimum cost. Assumed $2.64/each super-sack for loading on to the truck. Assumed transportation prices have not changed 

significantly since 1993 given that increased labor costs are likely being balanced by historically low fuel costs.
189

· Offsite Solvent Recycling (Distillation) Costs

Commercial offsite solvent recovery costs were developed using US Army Corp of Engineers Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-

01-04, 19 Aug 1999 (USACE Tech Bulletin). Recycling costs include handling and transportation of the solvent waste stream. The 

cost estimate is a service contract with one recycling facility for annual management of 1,000 gallons at a cost of $4.23 per gallon 

($976/ton, 2007$).

No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the same company. It is assumed that transfers are 

typically occurring within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum fee, unlike a commercial metal 

recovery facility. A commercial offsite solvent recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately half of a full load 

(2,500 gallons or 10.425 tons) for accepting small waste quantities for recovery. The minimum charge is estimated to be $10,171 

(10.425 tons x $975.65/ton). A minimum recycling charge is applied in the cost estimate if the generator ships less than 10.425 tons 

per truck load to the recycling facility at the end of its accumulation time period. Changes in generator status pre- and post-rule will 

allow longer accumulation time periods resulting in larger truck loads and fewer minimum charges. Shipments above 10.425 tons are 

charged $976 per ton.

· Offsite Acid Recycling Costs (Used in this RIA as Proxy for Other Types of Recycling)

Other recycling includes a mixture of waste forms. In 2003, the predominant waste forms recycled include very dilute aqueous waste 

(W101), spent concentrated acid (W103), other organic liquid (W219), contaminated soil (W301), batteries, battery parts, cores, 

casings (W309), and other sludges from wastewater treatment or air pollution control (W504). The largest quantity waste form is 

other organic liquid (W219) which is dominated by one waste stream that involves a “catoxid” reactor system that converts 

miscellaneous organic liquids into hydrochloric acid to be used in making ethylene dichloride. The second largest quantity waste form 

are very dilute aqueous waste (W101) which primarily involves the recycling of water at wood preserving plants. The remaining four 

waste forms are reported in relatively equal quantities. Acid regeneration is used as a proxy for the cost of other recycling category

given spent concentrated acid (W103) is a predominant waste form and that most of the largest quantity waste form (W219) involves 

the generation of hydrochloric acid.

Commercial offsite acid recovery costs were estimated using Pilot of the Pollution Prevention Technology Application Analysis 

Template Utilizing Acid Recovery System prepared by Zero Discharge Technologies, Inc for the USEPA Region 1, October 1999. 

Commercial offsite acid recovery was estimated using the system capital cost and operation and maintenance costs curves with an 

additional 30% for commercial profit. A capital cost of roughly $17,500 to $31,800 for recycling systems sized at 20 and 65 gallons 

per day (gpd) were utilized for this estimate (1999$). A factor of 1.5 was assumed to cover installation and startup costs for the 

systems. An annual expenditure of $639 for operation and $1,418 for repair and maintenance was estimated per system, respectively

(1999$). Each system was assumed to operate with a through-put of 25 to 160 tons of acid recoverable waste per year. Larger systems 

are composed of multiple units in 20 and 65 gallon increments. Smaller systems would be composed of a 20 gallon unit, with reduced 
190

operational period (see Exhibit D13 for cost equations). Capital costs were annualized using a 10-year life for the equipment at a 15% 

discount rate. Costs are assumed to be the same for recycling at offsite (“sister”) facilities owned by the same company within the 

same industry.

A range of facility sizes for offsite recycling operations was estimated using 1999 Biennial Report data. Acid recovery facilities 

were identified using the offsite USEPA ID (receiver) of waste streams with the reported management system of acid recovery

(M031). The average acid recovery facility size used is 250 tons per year. A facility size of 250 tons per year is estimated to have an 

unit acid recovery cost of $180 per ton (2007$). Unit costs for facilities sized above 250 tons per year begin to reach asymptotic 

limits, with a minimum unit cost for acid recovery of approximately $163 tons per year. Commercial offsite recovery unit costs do not 

include transportation and handling.

No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the company. It is assumed that transfers are typically

occurring within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum fee, unlike a commercial metal recovery facility. 

A commercial offsite acid recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately 50% a full load (2,500 gallons or 10.425 

tons) for accepting small waste quantities of waste for recycling. The minimum charge is estimated to be $1,879 (10.425 tons x 

$180.25/ton). A minimum recycling charge is applied in the cost estimate if the generator ships less than 10.425 tons per truck load to 

the recycling facility at the end of its accumulation time period. Changes in generator status pre- and post-rule will allow longer 

accumulation time periods resulting in larger truck loads and fewer minimum charges. Shipments above 10.425 tons are charged $180 

per ton.

Exhibit D13

Estimated Acid Regeneration Offsite Recycling Costs (2007$)

Cost Element 1 Annual Expenditure ($/ton)

Capital Expenditure (Annualized)2($136.87* (Recycled Waste Quantity) + $3,105) * 1.30

Operation & Maintenance ($21.33* (Recycled Waste Quantity) + $1,810) * 1.30

1 Costs inflated from 1999$ to 2005$.

2 Costs annualized over 10 years at 15% discount rate using a CRF of 0.19925.

D3. Unit Costs for Managing Industrial Recycling Residuals

Following most recycling processes, residuals may remain in the equipment or may be generated as a by-product or co-product that 

require disposal via landfilling, incineration, or other disposal method. These wastes face handling and characterization costs as well. 

These costs are typically paid by the generators of the residuals, but in the case of commercial recyclers, the cost for recycling residual 

management may be passed-on to their customers who initially generated the waste being recycled by the commercial recycler.
191

· Landfill Costs

Exhibit D14 summarizes four different unit costs applied in the breakeven test for estimating disposed waste and residual landfill costs 

pre- and post-rule:

1. Subtitle C landfill with stabilization unit cost has been developed to estimate management of disposed electroplating wastewater 

treatment sludge (F006), spent petroleum refining catalyst (K171 and K172), lead-bearing materials, and metal recovery

residuals. Unit costs for 2005 were reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost 

Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for RCRA Subtitle C 

commercial landfill disposal costs. The cost reported in RACER was $210 per ton for bulk hazardous waste with stabilization 

(2005$). The unit cost was inflated to $223 per ton (2007$) using the GDP Price Deflator January 2008. Because the abovementioned wastes contain metals, stabilization of these metals is included for meeting land disposal restriction treatment 

standards. The RACER 2005 unit cost was used as an average disposal cost for hazardous waste. The RACER 2005 disposal 

cost for hazardous is presented as a 30 city average of major cities across the United States. The landfill disposal costs 

assumed under baseline are presented below. A minimum charge for hazardous waste disposal is estimated as half a full load 

(i.e., nine tons = half load) totaling $2,004 (2007$).

2. Subtitle D landfill unit cost is used to estimate the disposal cost of non-hazardous residuals from recovery processes. RCRA 

Subtitle D non hazardous commercial landfill costs were estimated using the National Solid Wastes Management Association 

2004 annual survey49. The national average tipping fee for non-hazardous disposal was $35 per ton in bulk quantities ($37 per 

ton inflated to 2007$). No minimum charge is assumed for the disposal of waste in Subtitle D landfills as there is no regulation 

of non-hazardous waste storage times; therefore, each non-hazardous waste load will be a full 18-ton load.

3. Specialized stabilization technology (Super Detox) by Envirosource is used for baseline management of electric arc emission 

control dust (K061). USEPA granted a multi-site delisting of this technology in 1995. Electric arc furnace emission control 

dust (EAF) K061 waste is disposed by Envirosource using a stabilization technology called Super Detox®. Estimates for 

disposal of EAF range from $100 to $17550 (1999$) to $150 to $20051 (2002$) per ton. A disposal cost of $150 per ton was 

selected based on these numbers and inflated to 2007 dollars ($183 per ton) from 1999 dollars for this estimate.

4. Acid hazardous waste landfill unit cost was developed for disposal of residuals from acid recovery processes. Acid recovery

residual costs were assumed to be disposed at a hazardous waste landfill. Unit costs for off-site residual disposal were 

estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software. RACER 2005 lists costs for disposing of acidic liquid wastes at $1.50 

per gallon (2005$). The residuals density was assumed to be 1 ton per cubic yard, for a unit cost of $381 per ton (2007$) using 

the GDP Price Deflator from January 2008. A minimum charge of half a load is assumed for acid liquid waste disposal, 

totaling $3,971 (2007$).

49 National Solid Wastes Management Association http://www..nswma.org, 2005 tip fee survey (2004 data) National Average, inflated to 2005$ using the CPI 

factor 1.026.

50 Bagsarian, Tom Ed. “Cashing in on steelmaking byproducts”, New Steel March 1999, http://www.newsteel.com/features/NS9903f2.htm

51 MR3 Systems Inc., http://www.mr3systems.com
192

Exhibit D14

Recycling Residuals Disposal:

RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D Landfill Unit Costs (2007$)

Cost Element1($/ton)

Subtitle C Landfill with Stabilization $223/ton

$2,004 minimum charge

Subtitle D Landfill $37/ton

EAF Disposal (Super Detox®) $183/ton

Acid Disposal $381/ton

$3,971 minimum charge

1 Costs inflated from 1999 dollars to 2007 dollars for EAF disposal and from 2005 to 2007 dollars for all other costs.

· Fuel Blending/Energy Recovery and Incineration

Fuel Blending/Energy Recovery was assumed as the management method for residuals generated from solvent recovery processes and 

for the disposal of organic liquid wastes. These wastes are assumed to energetic and have a minimum 4,000 BTU energy value, which 

would provide for a self sufficient burn and require less additive fuel for incineration. Energetic incineration costs were estimated 

using RACER 2005 unit costs (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: 

http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for incineration of wastes with thermal energy values greater than 2,000 BTU 

and the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final 

Rule, USEPA OSW, July 1999. The reported costs were averaged for an estimated unit cost of $225 per ton ($2007). A minimum 

charge of half a 5,000 gallon tanker truck or 10.42 ton disposal load was assumed for disposal by incineration. The minimum charge 

is estimated as $2,352 ($2007). An incineration unit cost of $571per ton is assumed for bulk materials such as spent activated 

carbon.52

· Waste Shipment Loading/Handling Cost

Cost for loading/handling waste streams and residuals disposed offsite were estimated based on unit costs reported in the RACER 

2005 cost estimating software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: 

http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm). Three waste/residual streams are assumed; solids, sludges, and liquids. Solids, 

such as electric arc furnace dust, can be loaded with front end loaders into roll-off bins. Sludges, such as solvent recovery distillation 

bottoms, are contained in 55 gallon drums for handling. Liquids, such as acid recovery residuals, condensed acids with other 

52 Bulk contaminated soil unit cost from: http://www.etc.org/costsurvey8.cfm (inflated from 2004$ to 2007$).
193

impurities, are pumpable and stored in tanks and containers prior to loading into a tanker truck. Solid waste, sludge waste, and liquid 

waste loading/handling unit costs are estimated to be $0.47 per ton, $37.89 per ton, and $50.20 per ton, respectively.

· Initial Waste Characterization & Waste Shipment Characterization Costs

· Initial characterization: An initial physical and chemical characterization cost is incurred once for each hazardous waste or 

recovered waste. Generators may no longer incur this cost under the DSW rule exclusions. This cost element consists of two 

sub-elements:

1. The initial characterization includes a cost of $1,417 for an average 20 hours of staff engineer employee time to collect, 

prepare, and submit an average of three analytical samples (i.e., (20 hours) x ($70.83/hour)). The estimated labor hours are 

from “Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0820.10: Hazardous Waste Generator 

Standards”, January 2008.

2. Average analytical cost of $852/facility for analysis of three samples (i.e., ($284/sample) x (3 samples)); source: RACER 

2005 unit costs inflated to 2007 dollars (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: 

http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).

The generator per-facility per-waste stream average unit cost annualized over 3 years at 15% CRF is estimated at $1,056 ($2007) 

per waste stream.

· Shipment characterization: Waste characterization costs are also assumed for all recovery or hazardous waste disposal 

shipments. As the number of shipments decrease with longer accumulation times provided by the DSW exclusions, waste 

characterization costs may be expected to decrease. This cost element consists of two sub-elements based upon RACER 2005 

software:

1. Average cost of $62 per waste shipment for two hours process technician labor burden per-shipment to collect, prepare, and 

submit the analytical sample (i.e., (2.0 hours) x ($31.41/hour) ($2007).

2. Average analytical cost of $284 for analysis of each waste stream for disposal purposes (e.g., TCLPs, BTU values, or other 

regulated constituents).

Total cost per shipment for waste characterization is estimated as $346 ($2007).

D4. Methodology for Estimating Industrial Recycling Residual Waste Generation & Management

This section presents the methodology used to estimate metal, solvent, and acid recycling waste residual generation quantities and 

disposal management practices and recovered product quantities. It was developed using 1999 Biennial Report data for the 2003 DSW 

proposed rule. Records in the 1999 Biennial Report for generators reporting waste management with system types M013 (secondary

smelting), M021 (fractionation/distillation), and M031 (acid regeneration) were reviewed. Due to the limited number of facilities 

reporting wastes managed with system types M013 and M031, all such facilities were reviewed. Facilities reporting management by
194

system type M021 were divided into five groups. The five groups of facilities are approximately equal in number with one group 

containing the smallest generators based on quantity of waste managed by system type M021, the next group containing the next 

smallest generators, and so on. The data are divided into five groups based on quantity of waste managed to try and capture any

variation in residual generation and management based on generator size. Six facilities were randomly selected from each group. The 

groups were divided as follows:

· <1.1 tons/year managed

· 1.1 to 5 tons/year managed

· 5 to 13.5 tons/year managed

· 13.5 to 55 tons/year managed

· >55 tons/year managed

Exhibit D15 below presents the data results. The following assumptions were made regarding the waste recycling processes:

· Recycling systems for acid and solvents are closed loop. That is no losses from spillage or waste are assumed. This is a 

simplification of the actual process as many processes may include settlement tanks or other open-air sections that may allow 

evaporation or spillage.

· All ineffective products are removed with the process residuals. An effectiveness factor or assay value is included to estimate 

the “purity” of the recovered solvent, acid, or metal.

o Metals: For the metals recovery process, 32% of the waste quantity processed by the metals recovery unit is 

assumed to be waste residual. 20% of the waste stream is assumed recovered metal in higher quality wastes and 5% in 

lower quality disposed wastes. The remaining 48% or 63% (for lower quality disposed wastes) of the waste stream

mass is assumed to be components that are volatilized (e.g., water vapor) in the recycling process.

o Solvents: Mass is assumed to be balanced in the solvent recovery process. No additives or precipitants are 

assumed into the process, or the change in product/residual mass in comparison to the total mass is minor. For the 

solvent recovery process, 33% of the waste quantity processed by the recycling unit is assumed to be waste residual. 

The remaining 67% of the waste stream is assumed recovered solvent.

o Acids/other: Mass is assumed to be balanced in the acid recovery process. No additives or precipitants are assumed 

into the process, or the change in product/residual mass in comparison to the total mass is minor. For the acid recovery

process, 26% of the waste quantity processed by the recycling unit is assumed to be waste residual. The remaining 74% 

of the waste stream is assumed recovered acid.
195

Exhibit D15

Estimate of Hazardous Waste Recycling Residuals as Percentage of Waste Recycled

Statistical Measures H010 Metal Recycling H020 Solvent Recycling H039 Other recycling

1. No. Data Points 7 23 18

2. Range of Percentages 0.42% to 84% 0.46% to 140% 0% to 105%

3. Average Percentage (applied in this 

RIA for impact estimation)

32% 33% 26%

4. Standard Deviation +/-33.92% +/-32.13% +/-31.92%

· Metal recovery: Total of 19 facilities reporting wastes managed by secondary smelting (M013). A total of seven 

facilities were used in the percent residual calculation. Residual waste streams could not be identified 

for the remaining facilities. The management system type reported for the residuals identified for 

secondary smelting (M013) system processes are:

o M061 (fuel blending),

o M111 (cementitious stabilization)

o M112 (other stabilization)

o M119 (stabilization - type unknown), and

o M132 (landfill).

Five of seven waste generating facilities managed their secondary smelting residuals by stabilization 

(M111, M112, and M119). The likely final deposition of the stabilized wastes are in a RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste landfill.

· Solvent recovery: Residuals generated by fractionation/distillation (M021) system processes were reported managed by the 

following system types:

o M042 (incineration - sludges)

o M051 (energy recovery - liquids)

o M061 (fuel blending), and

o M081 (biological treatment).

A total of 28 facilities were reviewed, of which five facility residual waste streams could not be 

identified. Fuel blending (M061) was reported by 17 of 22 facilities for management of 

fraction/distillation (M021) residuals. An additional three facilities managed fractionation/distillation 

residuals by other co-burning or incineration systems (M042 and M051). The likely final disposition of 

fractionation/distillation residuals is energy recovery.
196

· Acid recovery: Residuals generated by acid regeneration (M031) system processes were assumed to be similar in form 

to the spent acid waste stream. That is, the contaminants (generally metals) were concentrated in a 

smaller portion of the waste stream for management. The disposal quantities of these residuals were 

identified by their description and management system type. A total of 23 facilities were reviewed, of 

which five facility residual waste streams could not be identified. Residuals were reported managed by:

o M039 (other recovery - type unknown)

o M042 (incineration - sludges)

o M043 (incineration - solids)

o M051 (energy recovery - liquids)

o M077 (chemical precipitation)

o M104 (solvent extraction)

o M109 (sludge treatment - type unknown)

o M121 (neutralization only)

o M134 (deepwell/underground injection), and

o M136 (NPDES discharge to surface water).

Chemical precipitation (M077) was reported by seven of eighteen facilities for management of acid 

regeneration residuals. One additional facility reported management by neutralization only, which is 

similar to chemical precipitation.

· Unit Costs for Managing Recycling Residuals

In the cost estimates, metal recovery residuals are assumed to be managed by stabilization and disposed in RCRA Subtitle C hazardous 

waste landfills. Solvent residuals are assumed to be managed by energy recovery. Acid recovery residuals are assumed to be managed 

by chemical precipitation. Cost assumptions for management of acid recovery residuals include stabilization and landfill disposal of 

precipitates and sewer discharge of neutralized wastewater.

If recycled materials are no longer hazardous, they no longer carry the label of being a listed waste, if applicable. Residuals from 

the recycling of listed wastes will no longer be considered “derived-from” wastes and no longer regulated under RCRA 40 CFR 

261.3(c)(2)(I). A condition of the DSW final rule exclusions is the “listed” waste definition will no longer be attached to residuals and 

management depends upon if the waste is characteristically hazardous only. To estimate the implementation impacts (i.e., cost 

savings) from not regulating residuals derived from recyclable materials as hazardous unit costs are needed for residual hazardous 

disposal (hazardous landfill, fuel blending, and acid precipitation/ dewatering/ stabilization/ landfill) and residual nonhazardous 

disposal (nonhazardous landfill, fuel blending, and acid precipitation/ dewatering/ stabilization/ landfill). In addition, estimates for the 

amount of residuals generated and the fraction that is characteristically hazardous or “listed” hazardous are needed. Landfill unit cost 

estimates are presented earlier in this chapter.
197

· Recycling: Offsite recycling fees already include the cost of residual management. Residual management costs only are needed 

for estimating the full cost of onsite recycling. For facilities currently recycling waste, the estimated incremental cost savings

from larger residual hazardous waste disposal shipments resulting from longer accumulation times and residuals being defined 

as nonhazardous is calculated within the cost analysis using nonhazardous disposal costs and calculated reductions in the 

number of shipments/loads per year..

· Fuel Blending: Fuel blending was assumed as the disposal method for solvents and solvent still bottoms. Fuel blending costs 

were estimated using RACER 2005 unit costs (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating 

system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for incineration of wastes with thermal energy values greater 

than 2000 BTU and the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous waste Combustion 

MACT Standards: Final Rule, USEPA OSW, July 1999. The reported costs were averaged for an estimated unit cost of $225 

per ton ($2007). A minimum charge of half a disposal load was assumed for disposal by fuel blending. The minimum charge 

is estimated as $2,352 ($2007).

· Acid Precipitation/Dewatering/Stabilization/Landfill: Disposal of acid liquids costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost 

estimating software. Mineral acids disposal was used as a proxy for acid waste disposal, with stabilization, at a landfill. The 

cost is estimated as $378 per ton ($2007).

· Residual Characteristics: Residuals generation from metals recovery was estimated using 1999 Biennial Report data. Waste 

streams at selected recycling facilities were reviewed by comments, disposal system type, and origin to determine the likely

waste streams generated from the recycling operations.

o Metals: Approximately 32% of the metals recovery mass was identified as residuals in the Biennial Report data. 

The recovered metals are assumed to be 20% of the mass for waste streams currently recycled and 5% 

of the mass for waste streams currently disposed. The remaining mass fraction is volatilized out the 

stack in the smelting process. The hazardous fraction of the residuals were determined by reviewing the 

waste codes for the waste streams reporting metals reclamation. Waste streams reporting characteristic 

codes were assumed to have residuals that would be characteristically hazardous waste. 95% of the 

metals recovery residual waste volume and frequency of waste streams are estimated to be 

characteristically hazardous with the remaining 5% containing listed hazardous wastes which are 

assumed in this RIA to become non-hazardous post-rule.

o Solvents: 33% of solvent recovery mass was identified as residuals and 67% as recovered solvent in the Biennial 

Report data. For currently disposed organic liquids the residual fraction was doubled to 66% to reflect a 

lower percentage of potential solvent quantity for recovery. The hazardous fraction of the residuals was 

determined by reviewing the waste codes for the waste streams reporting solvent recycling. Waste 

streams reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals that would be characteristically

hazardous waste. For solvent recycling, approximately 85% of the residual waste volume is estimated 

to be characteristically hazardous with the remaining 15% containing listed hazardous wastes which are 

assumed in this RIA to become non-hazardous post-rule.

o Acids: 26% of the acid regeneration mass was identified as residuals and 74% as recovered acid in the Biennial 
198

Report data. The hazardous fractions of the residuals were determined by reviewing the waste codes for 

the waste streams reporting acid regeneration. Waste streams reporting characteristic codes were 

assumed to have residuals that would be characteristically hazardous waste. For acid regeneration, 

approximately 75% of the residual waste volume is estimated to be characteristically hazardous with the 

remaining 25% containing listed hazardous wastes which are assumed in this RIA to become nonhazardous post-rule.
199

Appendix E

Data for Estimating State Government Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues

Exhibit E1 below displays the state government hazardous waste generation taxes and fees identified in this RIA for industrial 

hazardous waste generator facilities in 31 states. The two primary data references consulted for this RIA did not contain sufficient 

data, without further analysis outside the scope of this RIA, for eight states (DE, IL, NE, NV, NY, OH, TX, WV) to determine if 

“recovery” is included under their regulatory definition of “treatment.” For only one of the 31 states for which there are fee data (CO) 

an annual operating fee is charged to hazardous waste TSDFs, but this RIA simply assumes this fee is passed on to the generator and 

includes it with the generator fee impact estimate. In the typical preferred management hierarchy of reuse, recycling, energy recovery, 

treatment, and disposal, these states may not tax or assess fees on preferential forms of management.

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

1 AL NA=Not available NA

2 AK None $0

3 AZ Generators of 

waste that retain 

the waste onsite 

for disposal or 

who ship it offsite 

to a facility 

owned or 

operated by that 

generator

$4.00/ton

4 AR Monitoring/i

nspection 

fees

$500/yr $500/yr $500/yr $500/yr $500/yr $500/yr $150/yr $0/yr

5 CA Generator 

fee & 

generator 

waste 

$71,432/y

r

$53,573/

yr

$35,717/

yr

$17,858/

yr

$3,572/y

r

$1,429/y

r

$177/yr $0/yr
200

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

reporting 

surcharge

6 CO Haz waste TSDF 

annual operating 

fee (assumed 

offsite passed on 

to generator): 

Class III (resource 

recovery)

$2.50/ton

7 CT Haz waste 

generator tax

$9.59/ton

8 DC NA NA

9 DE Fee for offsite 

treatment. 

Unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($16/ton)

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

10 FL NA NA

11 GA Haz waste 

mgt fee

$1/ton $1/ton $1/ton $1/ton $1/ton $1/ton $100/yr $0/yr

12 HI NA NA

13 ID Haz waste fee $30.00/ton

14 IL Fee for on- or 

offsite treatment. 

Unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($7.19/ton)

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

15 IN NA NA

16 IA NA NA

17 KS Generator 

annual 

monitoring 

fee

$5,000/yr $5,000/y

r

$5,000/y

r

$1,000/y

r

$1,000/y

r

$500/yr $500/yr $100/yr
201

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

18 KY Generator haz 

waste fee

$2.00/ton 

(onsite)

$4.00/ton

(offsite)

19 LA NA NA

20 ME Offsite handling 

fee (assume 

handling = 

recovery)

$30.00/ton

21 MD NA NA

22 MA NA NA

23 MI NA NA

24 MN Quantity fee 

and tax & 

statewide 

program fee

$3,290/yr $3,290/y

r

$3,290/y

r

$3,290/y

r

$13.50/t

on

$52.20/t

on

$115.41/

ton

$274.72/

ton

25 MS Pollution 

prevention 

fee for 

generators

$2,500/yr $2,500/y

r

$1,500/y

r

$1,500/y

r

$1,500/y

r

$500/yr $250/yr $250/yr

26 MO Haz waste fee. 

For category tax, 

unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state [$0.7/ton + 

$20/yr]

$1.00/ton

27 MT Generator fee. 

Did not have

“Class” definition. 

Assume middle 

class/fee.

$600.00/yr

28 NE TSDF fee. 

Unclear if 

treatment equals 

Further 

Analysis 

Needed
202

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

recovery in this 

state ($1.92/ton)

29 NV Offsite treatment 

fee. Unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($40.20/ton)

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

30 NH Haz waste 

fee

$60/ton $60/ton $60/ton $60/ton $60/ton $60/ton $60/ton $0/ton

31 NJ Manifest 

processing fee 

(assumed 18 tons 

shipped per 

manifest)

$0.50/ton Haz waste 

generator 

biennial 

reporting fee 

& inspection 

& 

compliance 

review fee

$2,981/yr $2,981/y

r

$2,981/y

r

$2,981/y

r

$2,681/y

r

$2,428/y

r

$651/yr $67/yr

32 NM Generation 

fee & 

business fee

$20/ton

$2,500/yr

$20/ton

$2,500/y

r

$20/ton

$2,500/y

r

$20/ton

$2,500/y

r

$20/ton

$2,500/y

r

$20/ton

$2,500/y

r

$250/yr

$200/yr

$100/yr

$0/yr

33 NY Special 

assessment on 

offsite generation, 

treatment or 

disposal. Unclear 

if treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($16/ton)

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

Haz waste 

program fees 

for 

generators

$40,000/y

r

$40,000/

yr

$20,000/

yr

$6,000/y

r

$6,000/y

r

$1,000/y

r

$0/yr $0/yr

34 NC Generator 

fee

$0.50/ton $0.50/to

n

$0.50/to

n

$0.50/to

n

$0.50/to

n

$0.50/to

n

$25/yr $0/yr

35 ND None $0

36 OH Haz waste 

treatment & 

disposal fee. 

Unclear if 

Further 

Analysis 

Needed
203

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($24/ton)

37 OK Annual fee for 

offsite recycling

$4.00/ton Generator 

fee

$100/yr $100/yr $100/yr $100/yr $100/yr $100/yr $25/yr $0/yr

38 OR Annual haz waste 

generation fee

$45.00/ton Annual 

activity 

verification 

fee

$525/yr $525/yr $525/yr $525/yr $525/yr $525/yr $300/yr $0/yr

39 PA NA NA

40 RI NA NA

41 SC Annual haz waste 

fee. Annual nonhaz waste fee

$34.00/ton

$13.70/ton

42 SD NA NA

43 TN Annual 

generator fee

$900/yr $900/yr $900/yr $900/yr $900/yr $900/yr $550/yr $0/yr

44 TX Facility fee. 

Unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in this 

state ($4.80/ton)

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

Generation 

fee

$2/ton $2/ton $2/ton $2/ton $2/ton $100/yr $100/yr $0/yr

45 UT Haz waste 

generation fees

$28.00/ton

46 VT NA NA

47 VA NA NA

48 WA Haz waste 

education fee

$35.00/yr

49 WV Generator fee. 

Unclear if 

treatment equals 

recovery in state

Further 

Analysis 

Needed

50 WI Tonnage fee & 

manifest fee 

$0.26/ton
204

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Size-specific Taxes and Fees*

State

Non-size Specific 

Tax or Fee Tax or Fee Description

LQG

>2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

1,000 -

2,000 

tons/yr

LQG

500 -

1,000 

tons/yr

LQG

250 -

500 

tons/yr

LQG

50 - 250 

tons/yr

LQG

13.2 50 

tons/yr

SQG

1.3 -

13.2 

tons/yr

CESQG

< 1.3 

tons/yr

(assume 18 tons 

shipped per 

manifest)

51 WY NA NA

Explanatory Notes:

NA = Data not available.

* The 8 generator size (tons/year) categories do not fit all states. For this RIA, taxes/fees for states with different size categories are approximated to the 8 categories.

Sources of state government hazardous waste fee/tax data:

· US Army Corps of Engineers “Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facilities for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste”, HTRW Center of Expertise Information -

TDSF, Section 8.2, http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/pubs/tsdf/sec8-2/sec8-2.html, 11 Sept 2002.

· MN data from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Small & Large Quantity Generator License Fees & Generator (Superfund) Tax, Waste/Hazardous Waste 

#1.03b, March 2002.