### 1 

# Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments T o T he Industrial Recycling Exclusions O f T he RCRA Definition O f Solid Waste

Co -Authored B y: 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.gu stafson@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 US EPA 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 suppl e mental 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 E conomist) to remedy defici encies and address enhancements suggeste d by public commentors. T hi s RIA includes updated unit cost data and impact spreadsheet calculations prepared by DPRA Incorporated as sub
- contractor to In dustrial Economics Inc. under FY2008 Work Assignment Number 1 - 21 of US EPA 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 guidance 1 , p rior drafts of this 2008 RIA have been subject to four independent ex ternal 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 individ uals (or organizations) independent of those who performed the work, and who are colle ctively 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 conc lusions 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 additiona l 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 us ing 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. US EPA Economics Subgroup review : The 27 May 2004 US EPA memorandum from Steve Johnson (now US E PA Administrator) titled “Improving EPA’s Action Development Process”, established beginning in 2004 a new “Economics Subgroup” process for each US EPA 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 US EPA “Economics Subgroup” to oversee and review the desi gn and execution of the 2007 RIA and this RIA . The Subgroup consisted of nine US EPA employees from OSW, OPEI (http://www.epa.gov/o pei), 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. US EPA
- OPEI review : In March 2008, OSW provided the draft DS W final rule package including a March 2008 draft of this RIA to US EPA’s Office of Policy , Economics & Innovation for review and comment prior to sending to OMB . 4. OMB revi ew : 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 Rat e Applied in this RIA T he average annual economic impact estimates in this RIA are mathematically formulated in the first instance without discounted present value computations. Consequently , the averag e annual impact estimates in this RIA are not sensitive to either the 3% or 7% discount rate prescribed for Federal re gulatory 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 rate s for computing the present value and average annualized value of capital and O&M investment costs for ons ite materials recovery / recycling uni ts (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 scop e 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 solicite d 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 s ome 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 in put), 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 Ru le 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 Analysi s 12 2 . Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem Statement 14 2A. 1992 Task Force Rec ommendation to Improve RCRA Recycling Regulations 14 2B. 1987 - 2000 Court Decisions Direct US EPA to Restructure the RCRA DSW Regulations 15 2C. USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery 16 2D. In dustry Commentors on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposal s I dentify RCRA Barriers to Recycling 1 6 2E. In dependent Published Studies I dentify RCRA Barriers to Recycling of Industrial Materials 18 3. Background & Scope to this RIA 22 3A Summary of OSW’s Prior RIA s for the DSW Rulemaking 22 3 B 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 In dustrial Recycling Potentially De - Regulated by the DSW Rule 39 4 A Primary Data Source for I dentifying Industries, Facilities & Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected 39 4 B 2005 Baseline Hazardo us Waste Industrial Recycling Data 41 5 . Data for I dentifying Potential Switcho ver of Baseline Disposal to Recycling 52 5 A Id entificatio n of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline for Potential Recycling 52 5 B Methodology for I dentifying 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 6 A Regulatory Burden Basesline Cost Estimation Methodology 72 6B Unit Costs for Estimatin g the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline 7 5 6C Estimat e o f RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost 7 9

### 5 

## Table of Contents (Continued) 7. Esti mate of Potential Industry Cost s to Meet 12 DSW E xclusion Conditions 80 8 . M icro
- Economic Breakeven Test to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal Switchover to R ecycling 87 8 A Break e ven Test Methodology 87 8 B Key Assumptions Applied t o Breakeven Test 89 8 C Summary of Breakeven Test Results 90 8D Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposal for Recycling Switchover 9 2 9 . De - Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimate s 95 10 . Distributional Effect s 104 10 A Definition of Distributional Effects 104 10 B Potential Distributional Effects on Industries 106 10C Potential Distribution al Effects on State Governments 119 11. Countervailing Risks 120 11A Definition of Co unt ervailing Risks 120 11B Potential Countervailing Risks I dentifie d by Public Commentors 121 11C Countervailing Risk Ev aluation Me thodology 122 11D Evaluation of 12 C ountervailing Risks 122 12 . Sensi tivity Analysi s Factors 136 Appendices 154 Appendix A : Data Sources for Concentrations, Yield , & Market Value s of Recoverable Commoditie s 155 Appendix B : Unit Costs for Estimating Affected Industry Baseline RC RA Regulatory Burden (Pre
- Rule) 170 Appendix C: Unit Costs for Affected Industries to Meet the 12 Condition s of DSW Exclusions (Post
- Rule) 176 Appendix D: Unit Costs for In dustrial Di sposal & In dustrial Recycling 182 Appendix E: Data for Estimating State Government Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues 199

### 6 

# Chapter 1 S ummary & Major Findings Note : The word industrial “ recycling” is used in this RIA as a generalized term which is not necessarily sy nony mous to “ recovery ” or “ reclamation ”. “Recycling” ty pically 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 industri al 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” with in the scope of the usage of the word recycling , because those industrial activities are not eligible for exclusion from RCRA regulati on under the 2008 DSW amendments final rule. However, some state government s have classified “ energy recovery ” and “ fuel blending” as forms of recycling. Although not included in the “ recycling” impact estimates, th is RIA does include both energy recovery and fuel blending in the scope of potential impacts of th e 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 Was te” (DSW), is to revise and clarify the RCRA definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2) as it pertains to certain ty pes of hazardous se condary 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 des cribed i n Chapter 2 “Statement of Regulatory N eed ” 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.pd f · 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 by products) .

### 7 Exhibit 1A Three Main Component s of OSW’s 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Item Final Rule Component Amendment s 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. P ursuant to a written agreement between an offsite tolling contractor and the generator. 2 Exclusion 2 : T ransfer
based recycling 261.4(a)(24) Exclusion 261.4 (a)(25) Exports 260.42 Notification 1. Generated and subsequently transferred offsite to a diffe rent company, or 2. E xported to a foreign country for recycling. 3 Exclusion 3 : Case
- by
- case variance for “non - wa ste determination” 260.30 materials eligible for variances 260.33 variance procedures 260.34 variance standards & criteria 1. Materials reclaimed in a co ntinuous industrial process , or 2. Materials i ndistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or intermediate,. Explanatory Notes: * Land
- based units = landf ill, surface impoundment, pile, injection well, land treatment , salt dome fo rmation, 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 in dustry 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 exclusi ons, 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 esti mated 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 ye ar 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 i s not estimated in this RIA but is estimated in OSW’s Information Collection Request (I CR) 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 1 B 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 Combi ned 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 faci lities subject to the rule: 4a. Net industry savings from de
- regulating baseline recycling = 4b. Net industry savings from disposal switch over 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 numb er 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 t his RIA
· De - Regulatory Co st Savings to Industrial Generators of Affected Secondary Materials

· 5,564 directly affected industrial facilities, which represents 31% of the 17,741 L QG+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
- ye ar 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 skewed 3 

### national distribution of hazardous waste annual tonnage ; if the largest was te generators can take advantage of a DSW ex clusion, then most of the industry cost savings will likely be realized. · Top - 5 affected economic sub
- sectors (2
- digit NAI CS) = 86.9% : 1. 48.3% NAI CS 33 manufacturing 2. 27 .7% NAI CS 32 manufacturing 3. 4.2% NAI CS 92 public administration 4. 3.7% NAI CS 61 educational services 5. 3.0% NAI CS 54 prof essional, scientific & technical services · Top - 5 affected industry groups (4
- digit NAI CS) = 24.3% : 1. 7.0% NAI CS 3344 semi conductor & electronic s mfg 2. 5.1% NAI CS 3251 basic ch emical mfg 3. 4.3% NAI CS 3328 coating, engraving, & heat treating mfg 4. 4.1% NAI CS 3254 pharmaceutical & medicine mfg 5. 3.8% NAI CS 3364 aerospace product & parts m fg 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.ni st.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 RCRA
regulated 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 a sserted 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 was tes evaluated in this RIA for potential switchover from disposal to future recycling. o In duced new industrial recycling switchover from baseline dispo sal could involve 23,000 tons per ye ar, 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 - ye ar 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. " (Sourc e: p.61560 of 28 Oct 2003 Federal Register DSW initial proposal, and p. 1417 5 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, moly bdenum 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 m arket value o f 14 virgin materials conserved (i.e., production of 14 virgin material s displaced by b aseline disposal switchover to recycling induced by the DSW final rule) .

### 11



## · Distributional Effect s Exhibit 1C below presents potenti al distributional effects on 23 industries, consisting of 8 industries directly affected by the rule by being engaged in or s upporting 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 P otential Dir ect & Indirect Distributional Effects on 23 Industries A B C D E F Item NAICS industry code Industry Identity Count of facilities affected Average annual

d istributional effect on industry sales revenues Distributional effect as % average annual facility revenues 

### A. Direct Distributional Effects on Industrial Fac ilities Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Terms of the Rule 1 2 3 331492 562211 562211 A. H az ardous wa ste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonfe rrous 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 . I ntermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution

W aste & 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. I ndirect Distributional Effects on Industrial Faci lities Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Terms of the Rule 9 10 11 1 2 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. Hazardou s 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. No n - hazardou s 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 o ther basic organic chemical mfg ) Up to 172 Up to 685 - $3,680,400

- $578,900 - 0.156%

- 0.001%

### 12

22 325188 V irgi n other materials production (carbon black mfg) Up to 25 - $438,500
- 0.0004% 23 2121 G. C oal 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 exhib it summarizes the distributional effect estimates presented in Chapter 10 (Exhibits 10B & 10C) of this RIA . · * T his RIA assumes no net inter
- industry distributional effects on intermediate middlemen because they handle both hazardous and non
- hazardous waste s/materials.



## · Small Business Impacts (1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act 4 

## )

· 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 L QGs, SQ Gs 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 facili tie s in a 1996 OSW national survey of TSDFs reported that between 10 and 60 hazardous chemical c onstituents 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 repo rted for a single waste stream was 287 ). o Each of the 15 most prevalent constituents occurred in 20% of large waste stream s: five heavy metals (lead, chromium, cadmium, barium, arsenic) and 10 organic chemicals (toluene, xy lenes, benzene, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, ethyl benzene, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl acetate). Waste stream s reported in the survey carry a total of 724 di fferent chemical constituents. This survey suggests that most L QGs 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., propos ed 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 SBREF A 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. S ensitivity A nalysi s Not revealed in the impact estimates of this RIA are uncertaint ies in numerical values for computation factors. These uncertainties are not transparent because this RIA assigns single point valu es to numerical factors appli ed in the impact computations, rather than numerical uncertainty ranges (e.g., lower
- bound, most
- likely , and upper
- bound) . As defined and derived in Chapter 1 2 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 be lo w 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 n ot necessarily additive (i.e., compounding) in any given ye ar, 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 Factor s

A B C D E Item Ty pe 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 Hi gh
- end Low- end High
- end 1 State government adoption uncertainty
- 23% 0% $73.6 $95.3 2 Futur e fluctuation in annual tonnage of affected materials (3 major components):
- 57% +45% $41 $138 3 a. Within
- year tonnage di screpancy 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 % $12 5 $ 18 0 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 +1 0 % + 2 49 % $105 $ 33 3 11 b. P ossibility of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycling under Exclusion 1 +32 % +47 % $ 126 $ 14 0 Summary:*** Non - additive o verall minim um 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: · * D efinitions and calculations for each sensitivity f actor provided in Chapter 12 of this RIA. · ** C olumns D & E: :

o Factor s 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 cal culated by changing the prices applied within the impact estimation spreadsheets for this RIA. · *** Al l 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 ad ditive to other factors in any given future year.

### 14 

# Chapter 2 Statem ent 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 esta blished 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 (RI S) 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 RI S update recommended develop ing 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 e xisting DSW industrial recycling ex clusions listed in Exhibit 2A below .

5 RIS = EPA Publication Number: 530
- R- 92 - 021. This document is not currently available in ele ctronic 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 re covery, 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 comple te descriptions & conditions) 1 1985 261.2(e)(i) Materials u sed or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product without being reclaimed 2 1985 261.2(e)(ii) Materials u sed or reused as effective substitutes for commercial products 3 1 985 261.2(e)(iii) Materials r eturned as a feeds tock to the industrial proce ss 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 p ulping process 5 1985 261.4(a)(7) Spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid 6 1986 261.4(a)(8) Materials r eclaimed 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
- wa stewater splash condenser dross residue of K061 treatment in metals recovery units 10 1994 261.4(a)(12) Petroleum refinery oil
- bearing sludges, byproduct s 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) Spe nt 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)(1 9) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining used as feedstock to produce cresylic or naphthenic acid 16 2002 261.4(a)(20) Hazardous secondary materials u sed to make zinc micronutrient fertilizers


## 2B. 1987 - 2000 Court Decisions Direct US EPA to Re structure 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 Circuit 6 

### , which, taken together, have provided OSW with additional direction regarding RCRA regulatory exclusion of industrial recycling. This final rule represent s 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. US EPA (“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 i s de
- regulatory in nature because it excludes certain recyclable materials that have heretofore been subject to RCRA hazardous wa ste 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, US EPA 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 reso urces 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 c ould evolve over the long
- term to promote economic sustainability and more efficient use of resources. 7 

## 2D. Industry Comment or s on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposals Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling OSW received in public c omments on the October 2003 and Marc h 2007 DSW proposals , corroborating evidence that the DSW final rule may stimulate additional industrial recyclin g. Following are para
- phrased excerpts explaining how recycling of five specific ty pes of industrial secondary materials might be stimulated a s identified by public commenters. (Source: para - phrased from comments by IP C 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 O SW endorsement of their content , authors , or sponsoring organizations. 1. Solder: Solder dross, a byproduct of the soldering process, is sent b ack 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 “v ision” of the future of the RCRA wa ste 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, lea d
- bearing Q
tips, solder tips, rollers, and personal protective equipment contaminated with solder). Reclamation by the solder manufacturer would occur more frequently if the regulatory ba rriers were reduced or removed. Sludge from the stencil wash evapo rator 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 ed ger dust (20
- 25% copper) generated d uring 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 an d 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 rever se 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 [W

W] , is one of the many secondary materials that would be affected by the DSWpro posal. 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 electro plating 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 pe rform recycling under EPA's RCRA hazardous waste regulations has deterred these facilities from pursuing this type of copper recycling. W hen electroplating sludge is mixed into spent etchant, the residual acid or alkaline content in spent etchant dissolve s 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 TSD F. Under the DSWproposal, this combined mixture could be shipped to the etchant supplier for recycling, allowing the PCB manufacturer to eliminate separate shipments of electroplating sludge a nd etchant. However, because landfilling is generally less ex pensive than metals recovery under current regulatory restrictions, much metals
rich 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 sh ared 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 ap proach 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 EP A’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 fro m 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 Ident ify 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 source s of regulatory need summarized above , five studies published 1989 to 2001 by independent organizations listed below, also identified the ne ed 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 stu dies 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. 2 001 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 pursu es 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 displa ced 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: L essons for Central L ogistics Activites in the Department of Defense” , 2001, p.39: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1308.pdf ). 2. 2000: Progressive Po licy In stitute : “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 sulphuri c 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 significa nt 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 amen d 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 L aws Can Discourage Pollution Prevention: Case Studies of Barriers to Innovati on”, By

ron Swift: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=150&contentID=1159 ) . 3. 1999: Energy & Environmental Research Center “Regulatory ba rriers 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” designa tion 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 o vercome 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 sy stem, 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 burd ens associated with this rule create a powerful motivation to simply discharge used fixer to the drain and POTW [ publicly
- owned treatment work s ]
. 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 exp erience 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 li censed 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 activ ities using virgin materials, like the Clean Air Act, the Clean W ater 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 reusa ble (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 t hem. 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 regu latory 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 accu mulate 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 lo cal 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 fo r 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 Colleg e 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 L own, 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 RIA s for the DSW Rule mak ing
· Recap of OSW’s 1995 DSW RIA Methodology Study

· In support of the work done by OSW’s 1992
- 1994 DSW Task Force, I CF 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 approac hes that OSW could use to complete an RIA for proposed changes to the DSW; and (b) 30 Sept 1995 “Regulatory Impact Analysis Methodology fo r the Redefinition of Solid Waste” which proposed impact estimation methodologies and data sources for two separate se ts 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 prop osal to estimate potential switchover from baseline hazardous waste disposal, to new recycling , in addition to estimating the p otential de
- regulatory cost savings associated with baseline hazardous waste recycling . The Sept 1995 DSW re
- definition RIA methodology conceptual study completed by IC F Inc for OSW, outlined a 2 - stage impact estimation process involving four parts o Part 1 : Id entify recycling methods for which baseline costs are expected to be reduced at least 10% by the rule, and the ty pes of wastes being recycled by those methods . For those same waste ty pes identify any tonnages which are subject to baseline disposal rather than recycling. o Part 2: Conduct focused evaluation to determine if di sposed wastes identified in Part 1 are technically amenable to recycling, for example, by anticipating that sh ift
- over from disposal to recycling is most likely to occur from: o In cineration disposal and energy recovery di sposal, to solvent recovery ; and o Stabilization followed by landfill disposal, to metals recovery . o Part 3: Estimate the annualized cost for the hy pothetical new recycling, and compare it to the estimated cost for the bas eline 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 - ye ar 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 rule 9 

### to exclude certain ty pes of industrial recycling
--- in addition to the current 40 CFR 261 .2 industrial recycling exclusion s --- 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 NAI CS intra
- industry” rec yc ling exclusion op tion; 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 Enviro nmental Technology Council (ETC) representing the US commercial hazardous waste management industry ( see p ages 43 to 58 at: http://www.etc.org/ETC_Detailed_Comments.pdf) . In addition, e ight industrial commentor s identified 18 specific hazardous waste categories as potentially impacted and provided related technical suggestions to improve the economic impact e stimates . 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 200 3 RIA identified the primary waste ty pes (by SI C industry code and by physical form code) being reported recycled in the 1999 Biennial Report (BR) database, and assumed that all of these waste ty pes 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 ty pes evaluated using “breakeven” for swichover from disposal to recycling: 1. Organic liquids generated b y S IC 2821, 2834, 2851, 2869 (liquid form codes = B101
- B119, B201 - B219) 2. Emission control dust from SI C 3312 (solid form codes B301
- B319, B401 - B409, sludge forms B501
- B519, B601 - B609) 3. Metal
- containing liquids from SI C 3672 (liquid form codes) 4. Electroplating wastewater treatment sludges from SI C 3672 (solid form codes, sludge form codes) 5. Spent carbon from SI C 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
- RCRA
2002 - 0031 - 0002 (274 pages) at http://w ww. regulations.gov. 9 OSW’s “Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW) October 2003 pro posed 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: Defi nition 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.ep a.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/hazrecyc.htm

### 24

6. Spent catalysts from SI C 2911 (solid form codes, sludge form codes) 7. Spent aluminum potliner from SI C 33 34 (solid form codes, sludge form codes) 8. Spent pickle liquor from SI C 3312 (liquid form codes)



## · Recap of OSW’s 2007 RIA for the 2007 DSW S upplemental Re - Proposal

· In January 2007, OSW completed an RIA for the 26 March 2007 DSW supplemental re
- proposal , wh ich is available at (284 pages) http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr
- rule/ria.pdf . The 2 007 RIA evaluated eight regulatory options for DS W 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 benef its 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 L QG and TSDF facilities to switchover between 0.038 million to 0.213 mill ion 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 L QG and TSDF facilitie s 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 f or baseline recycling. The 2007 RIA built upon the eight waste ty pes identified in the 2003 RIA, and incorporated the 18 waste ty pes identified by public commentor s on the 2003 RIA, resulting in a list of 12 waste ty pes for breakeven evaluation, consistin g of the same eight disposal waste ty pes from the 2003 RIA, plus four other disposal waste ty pes: 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 “most
likely”* impact estimate: (1) no speculative accumulation, (2) generator notifies USEPA of recycling activity, and (3) generator re - notifies if recycling activity chang es. 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 wi thin 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 impact s 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 contr actors”. Note: the 2007 RIA did s 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 a na lytic 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 b ecause 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 consisti ng of “minimum”, “medium” (i.e., most
- likely), and “maximum” impact estimates.


## 3B . Summary of Public Comment s 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 RIA s , and on related economic analysis sub
- topics associated with OSW compliance with Executive Order 12866 procedures for compl eting Federal government RIA s These 25 comment sets represent 18 % of the total 136 “universe” of public comment s ets 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 set s from 23 organizations on the 2003 RIA, and 1 0 comment set s 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 1 2 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 New

mo nt 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 & Fertilize r 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
- t otal comment sets = 18 sets (n=23 organizatio ns) 10 sets

(n=14 organizations) T otal 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 b elow 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 exc erpts from each comment set as parsed and bracketed in s ummer 2007 by an OSW contractor (I CF Inc) . T he parsing and bracketing yielded a total of 76 sub
- top ics 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 20 03 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 shipme nts, (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 [E TC] 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] 2 002 - 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 20 03 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 cos ts, 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 a ssumed 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 - 052 9 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 N o rationale to assume in the 2003 RIA that hazardous waste tonnage recycled in 1997 but not in 1999 will aga in 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 d esktop 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 1 1 Under
- estimate d future annual tonnage s which may shift from current energy recovery to future recycling 2002 - 0031 - 0548 1 1 2 O ver - estimate d future annual tonnage s which may shift from current energy recovery to future recycling 2002 - 0031 - 0119 1 13 D id 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 F ederal regulatory docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket nr. EPA
- HQ
- RCRA
- 2002 - 0031. ** Commentor ID nr. 2002
- 0031 - 0231 represent s a jointly
- submitted set of comments representing six entities: (1) Sierra Club, (2) US Publi c Interest Research Grou p , (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. Dispos al 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. D ropping NAI CS code restrictions to baseline disposal data evalu ated for potential switchover; five of the 12 waste ty pes evaluated in the 2007 RIA were restricted to only five NAI CS codes 32411, 331 11 1, 332813, 33412, 334412 ; (source: count based on 2007 RIA Exhibit 2E , 2 nd 

### 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 Exhib it 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 ev aluation. c. In cluding (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 switch over 11 

### , 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 sec ondary 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 evid enced by two commentors (ETC & SOCMA) on our prior 2003 and 2007 RIAs w ho offered the following contrary s tatements 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) w ho 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 gene rators 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 s treams 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 f uel
- 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 for m 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. B roadening the ty

pes of disposed wastes evaluated for breakeven switchover to recycling, according to three commodity groups (i.e., metals, solvents, o ther materials ) which resulted in a count of 15 commodity material constituents (i.e., specifi c ty pes of chemicals and materials such as carbon, chromium, copper, lead, methanol, nickel, zi nc , 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.go v/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm) into the breakeven test of this RIA, to replace prior “ desktop judgment ” applied in our 2003 and 2007 RIA s concerning the concentration of commodity
- like constituents potentially recoverable from baseline dispo sed 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 ty pe s pote ntial 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 analys is f actors, 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 und er 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 esti mation 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. Li fecycle analysis : The 2007 RIA (Appendix D) contained a lifecycle analysi s (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 studie s 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 suffici ent and comprehensive LC A data, LCA models, and complex assumptions needed to execute L CAs for estimating comparative material flow, energy flow, and environmental impacts associated with the 100s of different nationwide industries consis ting of 1,000s of facilities generating and managing the 10,000s of hazardous waste stream s which may be affected by the DSW rule . For example, one limitation of the L CA 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 counterp arts. The 2007 RIA listed five L CA li mitations on pages 237 to 238 . In the interim since completing these two L CA studies for the 2007 RIA, OSW did not add new L CA case studi es, so this RIA does not provide a LC A 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 RIA s .



## · Exclusion 1: Generator Controlled Recycling Exclusion ( amendments to 40 CFR 260.10, 261.2, 261 .4 ) Ex clusion 1 is similar to “Option 7” of the 2007 RIA. E xclusion 1 pertains to de
- regulating three ty pes of baseline RCRA
- regulated hazardous waste recycling from the 40 CFR 260 RCRA Definition of Solid Waste , according to the 7 condition s 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. O ffsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of the generator ( addition of 40 CFR 260.10 ) 3. O ffsite transfer recycling under a to lling contract ( addition of 40 CFR 260.10 ) G enerators who currently recycle wastes either onsite or under either of the tw o offsite transfer arrangement s for this exclusion, are expected to realize de
- regulatory cost s avings . This RIA estimates this potential impact in th e 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 co st for RCRA
- regulated recycling. L imitation s in the Exclusion 1 impa ct estimation methodo logy of this RIA are :
· Omission of shared captive offsite recycling : T his RIA did not evaluate the potenti al for generator facilities owned or otherwise under “common control” (40 CFR 260.10(2)) by the same c ompany to construct a shared ( captive) offsite recycling unit in order to enhance the economy
- of
- scale feasibility for switc hover from baseline disposal t o 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 : T his 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 E xclusion 1 .
· Omission of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycl ing 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 offs ite 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 th e 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs summari zed below. If only one or two single industry commentors had indicated a low likelihood involving a small subset of hazardous waste ty pes, 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/infrastruct

ure : 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 investm ent. 5. Different business line : Onsite recycling operations would be viewed as separate business lines outside of the generator’s existing business. 6. S ite/facility s pace : In dustrial facilities (generators) do not have extra facility /property space for adding onsite recycling operations.

### 33 7. Capital investment : In dustrial facilities (generators) do not have extra capital investment capacity for adding onsite recycling operations. 8. Skilled labor : In dustrial 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 /by product materials. 10. Environmental permit s : 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 perce ived/real quality of onsite recycling/recovery compared to offsite commercial recyclers. These 1 3 reasons why baseline switchover to onsite recycling is unlikely are {enumerated} in the excerpts below: 1. American Chemistry Council (2002
- 0031 - 0093): “ [F] aci lities 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 tha t 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 gen erate 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 al

so 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. Wh ile 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 C ompany (2002
- 0031 - 0178): “ [W ]h en 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 ]i th 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 hav e 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 reclaim er. 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. IP C Association of Connecting Electronics Industries (2002
- 0031 - 0112): “EPA's economic analysis of the [October 2003 DSW

] p roposal'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 ca pital, 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 pers onnel 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 f ace {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): “ Wi thin 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. An ony

mous (2002
- 0031 - 04 79): “ [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 be en 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
. ”

· In direct 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 prob ably 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 NAI CS industry code 32519 “ Other Organic Chemical Manufacturing ” as a proxy indicator for recycling tolling arrangements . This NAI CS code most closely (narrowly ) represents the specialty batch chemical manufacturing industry as represented by the Sy

nthetic 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 data base indicate s 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 stream s generated by th e NAI CS 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. E xclusion 2 pertains to de
- regulating two categories of offsite transfer of hazardous secondary materials for recycling , according to the 13 conditions/requi rements 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: Material s 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 ty pes ( i.e., offsite and export) of recycling exclusions for Exclusion 2 . T he 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 f or 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 exclu sion, are expected to realize de
- regulatory cost s avings by either assuming: o the baseline offsite commercial hazardous waste recycler (e.g., NAI CS 562211) passes through de
- regulatory c ost

### 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 ele cts to switch to an offsite non - RCRA commercial recycler (e.g., NAI CS 562 92 materials recovery industry ) presumed to offer a lower price in proportion to the de
- regulatory cos ts 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 rec yc ling under E xclusion 2 , from the estimated baseline annual cost for R CRA
- regulated offsite recycling. 2. Baseline disposal switchover to recycling : Generators currently disposing hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite may find it more economi cal to switch from disposal to commercial offsite recycling (e.g., NAI CS 56292 mate rials recovery industry ) under E xclusion 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 switchov er 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 l imitation in the Exclusion 2 impact estimation methodo logy of this RIA is :
· In direct 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 ty pe cate gory 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 p robably 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. E xclusion 3 adds the fo llowing two new materials categories to the three existing 40 CFR 260 .30 RCRA non - waste determination variance s from classification as a solid waste , according to the 3 condition s summarized in Exhibit 3D below: 1. Materials that are reclaimed in a continuou s 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 ex isting 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 o f that program conducted by OSW in June 2002 12 

### , the RCRA delisting program granted a total 136 hazardous waste delistings over its initial 20
- ye ar period (1980 to 1999), which represents an average annual case
- by
- case activity level of about seven delisting s 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 savi ngs impact s , the number of affected facilities was determined u sing 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 - ye ar period . This 20
- ye ar period mirrors the RCRA “delisting” reference study period. The mean of the 7 per - ye ar 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 impa ct of this Exclusion .



## · Legitimate Recycling ( addition of 40 CFR 260.43 ) The 2008 DSW fi nal rule includes a requirement that reclamation must be legitimate for all of the final rule exclusions and non
- waste determination processes. Because the four facto rs 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” indus trial recycling, this RIA a s sumes that the 2008 DSW final rule ’s legitimac y factors will have a small impact not quantified in this RIA . T he basis for this assumption is the DSW final rule legitimacy factors are not substantively different than OSW’s long standing policy since 1989 , as OSW explained in the 2007 DSW supplemental re
- proposal :

12 USEPA Office of Solid Waste, E conomics, 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/h azwaste/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 com munity 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 Indust rial 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 designe d 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 “sol id 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 recyc ling of certain ty pes 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 stream s potentially affected by the 2008 DSW rev isions 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 for m the DSW and which are no longer subject to bi ennial 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 so urces, waste ty pes, 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 “ F o r m WR” for all hazardous wastes

receiv ed 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 832,0 0 0 WR form waste block s to the Biennial Repor t. 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 jurisdictio n 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 ty pically 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 facil ities may generate multiple and different waste stream s 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 in crease 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 analy sis reflects the RCRA exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. C onsequently, US EPA 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 wa ste 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 OS W’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 an y 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 Brow n, Margaret James & Gary Light, ICF Consulting, “SQG Up
- Date” 31 July 2000 memorandum to Peggy Vyas, OSW), there are about 114,000 SQGs w hich generate a total of between 600,000 to 9 30,000 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 mo nth (@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 a s an example wa ste 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 gene rator 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 Industr ial Recycling Data Exhibits 4A to 4G below summarize the B iennial R eport (BR) dataset for baseline hazard ous waste recycling for data year 2005 . Data ye ar 2005 is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year because the more recent dat a year 2007 will not be available until December 2008 14



### . The BR database only contains the primary NAI CS code for each waste generator and waste management facility . However, many industrial facilities have more than one NAI CS code corresponding to different ty pes of industrial operations within a single facility, but the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported under a single NAI CS code for each single facility in the BR dataset. For each BR historical data year (i.e., 1991, 19 93, 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 ty pes 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 facil ities generating wa stes that are r ecycled 2005 count

of waste streams that are recycled Onsite Offsite (Received from offsite) Total

facilities Onsite Offsite (Received from offs ite) 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, non
solvent organic liquids recovery, & other miscel laneous 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

mi llion (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%. · ** B eginning with BR data year 2001, US EPA 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 b aseline 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 NAI CS 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
- S ector

(2
- digit NAICS Code) Count of LQGs Tons Per Year

Generated Count of TSDFs Tons Per Y ear 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 Whole sale 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 3 4 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 He alth 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 Pu

blic 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: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennia l 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 NAI CS economic sub
- sector. Exhibit 4C Annual Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled by Type of Generator I ndustry (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 A dmin, 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 Service s - - - - - 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 mi llion 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 ty pes 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 p rocesses 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 treatme nt 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 Accide ntal contamination of materials, containers 0 0 0 0 0.0% 25 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not ro utine) 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 G4 5 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 stor age/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?? So urce 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 mi l lion 100.0%

### 47

Exhibit 4E below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the ty pes 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 medi a/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 W1 19 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 Con centrated 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 P aint, 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 83,8 33 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 1 8,990 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 1 3,977 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 mi llion 100.0%

### 49

Exhibit 4F below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the ty pes of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wast e designation regulatory codes (i.e., Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx codes) which are being recycled. Exhibit 4F RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Waste C odes Assigned to Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005) A B C D E F (C+D+E) Item RCRA Waste C ode 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 code s only 899,716 134,402 198,166 1,232,284 60.3% 2 Fxxx 1 or more non - speci fic industrial source waste code s

only 4,029 46,017 12,799 62,846 3.1% 3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source wa ste code s 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 residue s & 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 Assigne d with 2 or more wa ste 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 mi llion 100.0% 

### Exhibit 4G below indicates the respective fraction s (i.e., associated tonnage s and percentage s ) for each of the three recycling methods which invo lve recycling “ acute ” hazardous wastes. Solid wastes shall be listed under RCRA Subtitle C as “ acute hazardous wastes ” if they either: · H ave been found to be fatal to humans in low doses , or · H ave been shown in studies to have an oral LD 50 toxicity (rate) of less than 50 milligrams per kilogram, an inhalation L C 50 toxicity (rat) of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a dermal LD 50 toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200 milligrams per kilo gram, or · Are oth erwise 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 " acu te hazardous wastes ” are designated with the hazard code (H) and i nclude: · 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: F02 0, 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 (onsit e + 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 296,6 81 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 US EPA 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: T he baseline hazardous waste recycling tonnage evaluated in this RIA for potential de
- regul atory cos t savings is 1.51 4 million tons , not 2.045 million tons as shown in Exhibits 4A to 4G above . Th e 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 Repor t (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf ), the same data query logic were used to complete E xhibits 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 off
site shipment tonnage data for recycling. Hazardous waste tonnage m ass balance does not exist in the BR data base 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 de
regulatory cost savings analysis. Exhibits 4A through 4G present the national basel ine recycling picture based on BR data reporting logic. However, the recycling quantiti es 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 : § T here i s a data reporting or data entry error, or § N ot all of the quantity generated is recovered ( i.e., some may be disposed), or § N ot all of the quantity generated in 2005 was recovered in 2005.

### 51

o Source code G61 received from offsite for storage/bulking f or 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 Exh ibit 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 ship ment tonnages to off
- site recycling (i.e., Form GM, Sec tion 3, Sit e 1, Site 2, and Site 3) .

### 52 

# Cha pter 5 Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Recycling 5 A . Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline The DSW r

ule 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 e stimate 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 an d 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
- by
facility 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 E xhibits 5A to 5E below provide an overview of the 2005 RCRA hazardous waste disposal base line. As displayed in Exhibit 5 A below, note that two beneficial disposal meth ods are included in this RIA (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as fuel, and H061 blending waste for use as fuel off site), in addition to 22 non - beneficial disposal methods. Although H050 energy recovery and H061 fuel blending are in
- eligible methods for th e 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 C oalition (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 hazar dous 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 Ultimat e* 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 d escription Count of disposed wa ste s treams Onsite Offsite

(Received) Total f

acilities (non
duplicative) 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 Subto tal 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 Tr eatment 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 Abso rption 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 Tre atment 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%) 41.87 9 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 di sposal, and from Form WR for offsite disposal . Tonnages for m anagement method code H141 (wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or di sposal at the transferring site) are not included in this exhibit be cause 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 m anaged 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 dispos al methods.

### 54 Exhibit 5B Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing Total Baseline Disposed RCRA H azardous 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 O nsite 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 & Insuran ce 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, E ntertainment, 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 %) 41.87 9 million

(100%) Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm ** B eneficial 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 Haza rdous 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 21 8,877 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 P roduct & 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 18,43 0 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, n ot 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 Haza rdous 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 t o 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: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm * B eneficial 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 25 7,213 261,630 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 aqueo us 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 aqueo us 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 26,37 4,638 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 16,3 23 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, dro sses, 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 Exp losives 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: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm * B eneficial 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/ye ar) Total disposal (tons/year) 1 Dxxx 1 or more to xicity 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 off
spec commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues thereof 85 153,084 153,169 <1% 5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercia l chemical

products, manufacturing intermediates, or off
spec commercial chemical products 6,435 250,852 257,287 <1% 6 Mixed Assigned with multiple was te codes from 2 or

mo re categories above 1,234,460 12,288,403 13,522,863 32% 7 ???? Waste code not prov ided 269,927 426,076 696,003 2% Column totals = 2,894,015 38,984,665 41. 87 9 million 100% Explanatory Notes: Data Source: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm * B eneficial 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



## 5 B. Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wast es 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 screen ing process involves two steps:

· Step1: P rimary screening criteria to identify disposed wastes containing c onstituents of potential commodity value · Step 2: S econdary screening criteria to identify commodity
- containing wastes of sufficient physical quality for recovery The purpose of these compl ementary 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 sw itchover to recycling under the DSW final rule exclusions. The baseline disposal ty

pes 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 bre akeven 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 chan ge their management practices for individual waste stream s 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. T his 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 : Lo w 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 t ons of baseline disposal appear s to be low quality in terms of potential commodity recovery (recyclin g) efficiency and market valu e. 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 O ther 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 bas eline 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 tonn age do es not have associated Gxx source codes, Wxxx physical form codes, or Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx , Uxxx w aste codes : Exhibit 5C row 37 Disposal data w ithout 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 Dxx x, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx 0 .70 million tons 1.7 % Subtotal = 6.32 to 8.85 million tons ( 1 5% 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 p rimary screening selection criteria for assigning to recycling commodity groupings as described below in Exhibit 5F.



## · Ste p 1: Primary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Commodity Values) The first data screening step is structure d 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 ty

pes of materials involved in ea ch of these three recovery methods. Exhibit 5F bel ow presents the primary data screening c riteria applied in this RIA according to these three commodity groups . The screening criteria consist of three sequentially applied “if then” data selection criteri a involving 67 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste codes:

· Wxxx: 16 BR physical/chemic al form codes · Gxx: 4 BR industrial process/activity source codes · Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx: 47 RCRA regulatory waste codes OSW identified and assigned the screen ing 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 previous ly

) 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, th e resultant disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 5A to 5E are higher than those used in the breakeven test as p resented 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 th e 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 on site 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 B R 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 reporti ng/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 fro m off s ite 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 In dustrial 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 cyani de
- 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) · D0 05 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 i norganic 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 Solven t 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 disti llates 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 e xchange 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 with in 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 we re pulled (criterion C). · **T here 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 re view of W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cl eaning, 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/s ewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep
- we ll 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 re source 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 S creening 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) R emove disposed was te 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 d estructive 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) R emove 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 was tes 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 generatio n 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) R emove wastes with was te 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 aqueous
based wastes ty

pically do no t 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) R emove some miscellaneous disposed wast es : 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 proce ss 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 Fo rm 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 ty pes 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 ty pes, only spent carbon from these four waste ty pes 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 ye ar, 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
- categ ories 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
- al l sub
- category in the baseline recycling data records analy zed 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 & Seco ndary 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 Screen ing 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. 08 5 million

### 66



## 5C. Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that May Switchover to Recycling Exhibits 5H through 5J below present the resultant ty pes 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 “breakev en 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) 2005 Count of Facilities Disposing 2005 Tons Disposed (management quantity) Item Disposal 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 B iological 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 C hemical 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 Ph ase 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 Dis posed (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 Ben eficial

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 Se rvices 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: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm * B eneficial 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 A griculture, 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, C ouriers, 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 Prof

es sional, 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 2,3 76 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 = 1,39 6,019 (67%) 681,928

(33%) 6,694

(<1%) 2.085 mi llion

(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 wa ste >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 W2 02 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 sludg es 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 sludg es = 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: US EPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report : http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm * B eneficial 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 + H 132 + H134 + H135 + H141.

### 72 

# Chapter 6 Estimate of Industry Baseline Cost for Complying with 14 RCRA Regulatory Requirements 6 A . Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost Estimation Methodology This chapter estimates the baseline (i.e., current) RCRA regulatory co mpliance burden
--- consisting of administrative paperwork burden plus technical standard s burden
--- which may be eliminated with changes in RCRA regulatory status of the industrial materials and industrial f

acilities under each DSW final rule exclusion . As itemized in Exhibit 6A below, this RIA estimates 14 elements of b aseline RCRA regulatory burden on the regulated community (i.e., industrial hazardous waste generators, waste transporters, and waste TSDFs ) such as reporting to US EPA
- authorized state go vernments , onsite recordkeeping, RCRA permitting of waste management units , waste transport manifesting, and meeting RCRA Subtitle C te chnical standards for design, construction, operation and closure of hazardous waste management units . T hese are the bas eline 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 faci lity may change when recycled wastes are no longer counted as hazardou s 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 it s post - rule generator status and continued RCRA regulatory burden . Some facilities may g enerate no RCRA hazardous waste post
- rule. Also, if L QGs, SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from L QG to SQG, or switch from L QG 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 exclusio ns 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 ye ar) . SQGs and CESQGs have fewer RCRA regulatory administrative requirements than L QGs under 40 CFR Part 262 of RCRA Subtitle C ( i.e., relative ly less baseline burden for RCRA personnel training, biennial reporting of hazardous waste generation and management activities, and preparation of contingency plans ).

### 73 Exhib it 6A Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Compliance Requirements b y 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 US EPA 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 wa ste being accepted by ini tial 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 as sociated with the recycling process. 8 Use Manifests Required Required, unless the wa ste 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 gene rator becomes a SQG (with contract agreement) or CESQG with exclusion.

### 74 Exhib it 6A Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Compliance Requirements b y 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 Pr eparadeness & 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 exclusio n. 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 (4 0 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 d ays 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 we i ght 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 requir ements = 11 7 0 14

### 75



## 6B. Unit Costs for Estimating the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline Thi s section identifies the RCRA regulatory compliance baseline unit cost s which form the basis for estimating baseline burden on affected industries. Unit c ost 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 es timate the RCRA regulatory burden baseline cost to affected industries, which will be re duced 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 l abor hour estim ates contained in In formation Collection Request (ICR) supporting statements for the RCRA hazardous waste program. 16 

### An IC R describe s reporting, record keeping, survey, or other information collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households, i ndustry ) by a Federal agency such as the USEPA. The I CR 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 evaluate d for compliance with 40 CFR 262 generator standards such as manifest, pre - transport, recordkeeping, reporting, and differences in regulatory requirements for facilities th at are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF regulatory status . Exhibit 6B Summary of 14 Basel ine 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 Ty

pe of applicable facility Average unit cost & cost

frequency per RCRA regulatory burden activ ity 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 262.12 LQGs, SQGs 1 EPA ID Number 264.11 TSDRFs --- --- Unit cost not estimated. Assumed no cost savings. 262.34, LQGs, SQGs 2 Personnel training 26 4.16 & TSDRFs · Haz Wast e 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 9 76, 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 Basel ine 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 Ty

pe of applicable facility Average unit cost & cost

frequency per RCRA regulatory burden activ ity 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 CES QG: $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 Record
keeping 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. 262.41 LQGs 5 Biennial reporting 264.75 &

265.75 TSDRFs LQG: $364/year SQG: $0/year (not required) CESQG: $0/year (not required) Annual for facilities that change gener ator 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 c ost not estimated. Assumed there would be no incremental cost savings. 7 RCRA Subtitle C Part B permit r enewal 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 U SEPA, 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 g enerator status Supporting Statement for ICR Number 801.15 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste Management

### 77 Exhibit 6B Summary of 14 Basel ine 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 Ty

pe of applicable facility Average unit cost & cost

frequency per RCRA regulatory burden activ ity 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 Hazardo us 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 facil ities 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 Basel ine 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 Ty

pe of applicable facility Average unit cost & cost

frequency per RCRA regulatory burden activ ity 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 Explanat ory Notes: * RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm ** In addition to “fixed costs” per facili ty, 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



## 6 C . Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Paperwork Burden Baseline Exhibit 6 C Estimate of Affected Industry Baseline Annual Costs for Complying w ith 1 4 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 US EPA 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 Include d 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/Res id. 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) $24,557,14 3 $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 Potentia l Industry Costs to Meet 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions This chapter estimates the potential cos t to industry for meet to 12 condition s associated with the three DSW final rule exclusions . Implementation of the DSW r ule may cause facilities to incur costs for meeting these conditions under the DSW exclusions , which may affect facility onsite waste accumulation practices, was te 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 c ompliance with the conditions of each DSW exclusion may also result i n 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, result ing in larger truckloads for shipment. With larger truckloads mini mum management charges (higher unit costs, $/ton) may be avoided. Longer accumulation times will result in few shipments and reduc ed total shipping costs. · Residuals management : The DSW rule may cause residuals (e.g., ash, distillation bottoms) generated f rom the re cycling 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 de
regulated 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: 26 1.21 ignitability , 261.22 corrosivity, 261.23 reactivity, and 261.24 toxicity ) . Exhibit 7A below prese nts a summary of the 12 conditions for the three DSW final rule exclusions , and Exhibit 7 B displays the average unit co sts estimated in this RIA for ea ch . 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 wi th these conditions .

### 81 Exhibit 7A 12 Condition s for the 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Recyclin g 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 accumulati on” 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 US EPA to demonstrate that materials are not solid wa stes 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 b y (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 as sumes 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 c losure 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 leak s/spills. 10 Residuals derived from No Yes N/A Assume all affected entities are currently treating residuals as listed

### 82 Exhibit 7A 12 Condition s for the 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Recyclin g 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 environmentally
protective manner wa ste, so cost savings will be incurred because “listed” waste definitions will n o 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 r equires 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, p lus 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 n ot distinguish and include the nine criteria for making a non
- wa ste 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 total count of co nditions 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 E xclusion Conditions Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computati ons Presented in Appendix C Item DSW

Exclusion Condi tion 40 CFR

Equiva
lence Ty

pe 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: $78 5/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 Aci d 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 we ight 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 US EPA initially & every 2 - years New LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs · $122 per initial notification

· $ 122 per re - no tification · 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 professio n judgment assuming 110

minutes labor time per initial and per re
notification 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 · $12 3 per initial

certification · $123 per re
- certification · Average annualized basis = $62 per year (i.e ., ($123 every 2 years) / (2 year re notification period)) Initially plus every two years; this RIA calculates an average annualized cost to apply in the impa ct 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 US EPA to demonstrate that materials New LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs $11,415/variance Once Assume administrative burden cost to industry is identical to the US EPA Supporting Statement for ICR nr 1189.14 Identification, Listing, & Rulemaking Petitions, Sept 13, 2004; To conduct waste charact erization (totals and TCLP) to

### 84 Exhibit 7B Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Industry Compliance with 12 DSW E xclusion Conditions Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computati ons Presented in Appendix C Item DSW

Exclusion Condi tion 40 CFR

Equiva
lence Ty

pe 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 so lid wa stes demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other material values warranting recycling. 5 Maintain records of off

site shipments for recycling New LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs · LQG: $702/year

· SQG: $468/year · CESQG: $234/year Annual for fac ilities 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 fo r 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” wa ste 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 E xclusion Conditions Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computati ons Presented in Appendix C Item DSW

Exclusion Condi tion 40 CFR

Equiva
lence Ty

pe 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 wa stes. · 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 & con sent and filing annua l reports documenting number of shipments and quantity of material s 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 no t estimate the annual p ercentage of affected hazardous secondary materials which may be exp orted 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 condition s in this Exhibit because the legitimacy factors are common to all three exclusions and are substantively the same a s 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 Mee t 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 US EPA initially & every 2
- years $18,909 $367,787 N.A $386,696 3 Notification signe d by corporate official $18,909 $367,787 N/A $386,696 4 Generator submits petition to US EPA 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 c ost 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 i ncluded i n Item 5 Assume i ncluded

in Item 5 N/A Assume i ncluded 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 i tem 14 ; assume residuals managed as haz waste N/A Netted
- out from baseline burden in Exhibit 6C i tem 14 ; assume residu als managed as haz

wa ste 11 Generator e x ercises 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 al l 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
- wa ste determination under Exclusion 3. This mo re 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 Exclusi on 1, 20 for Exclusion 2, and 15 for Exclusion 3.

### 87 

# Chapter 8 Micro - Econom ic Breakeven Test to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling 8 A . Breakeven Test Methodology Excluding metals, solvents, and other industrial “hazardous second ary 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 . T his chapter presents estimates o f the potential new future industrial recycling that may be induced by the DSW exclusion s . The induced new recycling estimates are based on applying a financial “breakeven test” to estimate the portion of baseline h azardous wastes which might s witch over f rom 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 resu lt 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 1 00s of different industries consisting of 1,000s of industrial facilities generating or managing 10,000s of in dustrial hazardous waste stream s potentially affected by the DSW final rule prohibits a meaningful analysis in this RIA that would reflect the unique ons ite plant and business factor s 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 industri es 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 independe ntly evaluate their claims, five public commentors on OSW’s 2003 and 200 7 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 indus tries which may be most aff ected 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 rec ycling scenario is not reasonable because (a) facilities within a single NAICS code industry are unlikely to be a ble 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 constr aints 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 di fferent 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 comme ntor 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 rec yc ling 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 represent s in this RIA, a relatively less certain, hy pothetical future scenario . It i s important to emphasize th at this disposal switchover to recycling scenario do es not represent a “predic tion ” or “forecast ” in this RIA , but represent s 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 [altern ative] 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 additi onal savings to generator s from at least three sources: 1. R elaxed wast e 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 gen erated 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 haz ardous (40 CFR 261 Subpart C). 3. Reduction and elimination of b aseline 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 complyi ng with the condition s of each DSW exclusion . Induced ne w recycling impact s 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 · S tat e government hazardous waste fee cost sav ings to industry · W aste management costs ( i.e., current waste disposal cost compared to new recycling cost) to industry waste generators · P otential market value to recyclers of the recovered material commodities ( if hy pothetically recycled rather than dispos ed) 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 . 

## 8 B . 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 ty pes/quantities which of sufficient physical quality and technical acceptability for potential materials recovery . · Spreadshee t computation: This breakeven test is structured according to an “IF statement” cost comparison structure wh ich compare s baseline disposal costs for each waste category, to the hy pothetical alternative cost for each facility to switch management of waste s to offsite commercial recycling under Exclusion 2 . Th is cost comparison indicates that facilities may switch to new recycling if the hy pothetical cost for recycling is less than the baseline disposal cost. The breakeven test was not appl ied to the case
- b y- case Exclusion 3 , because this RIA assumes that baseline disposal switchover will not occur under Exclusion 3 which involves case
- by
- case variances .

### 90



## 8 C . Summary of Breakeven Test Results Exhibit 8A present s 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 averag e annual facilities an d associated small waste quantities (tons per ye ar) which may become excluded under Exclusion 3. The breakeven test compared five categories of cost el ements for baseline RCRA
- regulated waste disposal , to hy pothetical switchover to D SW
- excluded rec yc ling : 1. P otential cost savin gs 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 condition s of the DSW final r ule exclusions as presented in Chapter 7. 3. Potential cost savin gs to generators from reduced hazardous waste taxes paid to state governments as presented in Chapter 10 . 4. P otential market value of recoverable commodities contained in the base line disposed was tes 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 Base line 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 Gro up #1: Metals 1 A Metal Containing Liquids H071/H077 Chemical Precipitation Offsite Ion Exchange Metals Recovery Not economical at any reported quantity 0 1B Metal Containing Solids H111 stabi lization & 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 l andfil l Offsite Smelting ≤ 22 tons/yr if LQG pre
- rule 4.5 1E Catalyst H111 stabilization & H132 l andfill Offsite Smelting ≥ 0 tons/yr if LQG pre
- rule 10,947 

### Commodity Group #2: Solvents 2A Solvent Bearing Liquids H050 Energy Recovery Offsite Fractionation/ D istillation ≤ 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 C arbon H040 incineration Offsite Carbon Regeneration ≤ 32 tons if LQG pre
- rule. 1,136 3B Sodium Fluoride H111 stabilization & H132 l andfill Offsite Fluoride Recovery using Vortec technology Not economical at any reported

quantity (no commercial capacity has been constructed) 0

Column total = 23,41 3

### 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 ty

pes 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 yi eld, 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 base line 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 rel ative quality (i.e., physical/chemical composition) of the constituents in the secondary materials:

· Constituent ty

pe: The chemical ty

pe 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 feas ibility 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 t o 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 : Generat ors 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 Exh ibit 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)
Ty pe of commodity in b aseline d isposed wastes B aseline

disposed Waste quantity meeting breakeven t est (tons/year) Ty pical recoverable commodity concentration in disposed waste (% waste tonnage) Percentage of baseline disposed was tes which may contain the c om mo dity Breakeven

test sp read sheet calibration f actor Commodity

v alue @90% market price for virgin materials ($/ ton) Quantity of

commodities p otentially recoverable from d isposed waste (tons/year) Pot ential annual

market value of recoverable c om mo dities @90% virgin material price Com mo dity 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) 2,4 89 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 Com mo dity 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 $578,90 0 Com mo dity 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 Exh ibit 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)
Ty pe of commodity in b aseline d isposed wastes B aseline

disposed Waste quantity meeting breakeven t est (tons/year) Ty pical recoverable commodity concentration in disposed waste (% waste tonnage) Percentage of baseline disposed was tes which may contain the c om mo dity Breakeven

test sp read sheet calibration f actor Commodity

v alue @90% market price for virgin materials ($/ ton) Quantity of

commodities p otentially recoverable from d isposed waste (tons/year) Pot ential annual

market value of recoverable c om mo dities @90% virgin material price Group #3 subtotal = 1,136 102.2 $438,50 0 Column Total = 23,41 3 902.3 $4.7 mi llion Explana tory 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 te st of this RIA (based on 2005 RCRA Biennial Report). · Column C: “Typical” concentrations calculated to represent tonnage
- we ighted mean (i.e., harmonic mean) concentrations relative to the entire quantity of the wa ste matrix for wastes with the chemical pres ent (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, 500,00 0 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 wa ste stream s which may be affected by the DSW rule, and which are evaluated in the breakeven spreadsheets (a total of 14,144 baseline disposal wa ste stream s are evaluated in the breakeven spreadsheets). A 100% calibration factor in this Exhibit indicates no adjustment was required for the particular wa ste type. Calibration factors < 100% in this Exhibit indicate the breakeven test sprea dsheets 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 wa ste disposal cost. For all such cases in the breakeven spreadsheets , the estimated recovered commodity market value component of the alternative recycling cost wa s 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 exclusi ons. · Column F: Derived from th e data and references in Append ix A to this RIA; 90% market price applied to account for perceived or real lower quality.

### 95 

# Chapter 9 De - Regulatory Cost Savings Net Im pact Estimates This chapter contains a series of exhibits which present the outcome of the net impact estimation spreadsheet computations for this RIA. The net imp act estimat es consist of three additive components: 1. B aseline cost : This RIA estimates annual industry cost savings to L QGs, 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 ty pes of haz ardous waste management units at their facilities (thus not completely eliminating their TSD F regulatory status under RCRA Subtitle C), th is RIA only estimates baseline cost savings for one of the TSDRF rec yc ler cost elements listed in Chapter 6 (i.e., Exh ibit 6B row item 7 “Part B permit renewal” cost savings). 2. New costs : T o affected industries for complying with the paperwork burden conditions under each DSW exclusion . 3. N et 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 e xclusion , according to 2 - digit NAI CS code economic sub
- sectors:
· Exhibit 9A: P resents estimated counts of affected hazardous industrial waste streams · Exhibit 9B : P resents estimat ed counts of affected industrial facilities · Exhibit 9C: P resents estimated counts of affected industries (i.e., 5 - digit NAI CS code industry counts within the 24

different 2
- digit NAI CS sectors) · Exhibit 9D : P resents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous wastes · Exhibit 9E : P resents the dollar
- value of estimated annu al net cost savings to industry accordin g to 2 - digit NAI CS sectors · Exhibit 9F : P resents 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 b aseline disposal switchover to de
- regulated rec yc ling (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 affect ed 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 : T olling arrangement offsite recycling indirectly estimated using baseline o ffsite recycling for NAI CS industry

code 32519 Other Organic Chemical Mfg. · Exclusion 2: O ffsite transfer recycling based on all other offsite recycling not covered under Exclusion 1 (i.e., mutually
exclusive non
- duplicative impact), plus all baseline dispo sal 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 NAI CS 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 de
regulatory cost s avin gs 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 Estimat ed 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 1 A (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 Constructio n 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 27 7 279 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/Enterpri ses 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 t he 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, Fores try, 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 & Leas ing 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 Esti mated 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, 1 B & 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 4 2 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, Re ntal & 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 Gen eration & 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 Ex clusions 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 In formation 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 1,01 7 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 Exclusi on 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) aff ected 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 Base lin e 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, Fore stry, 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 $ 2,50 3,484 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 $94,044,273 Ave rage per affected facility ($/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 mi llion * 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 Re cycling 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 Manufac turing 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 mi llion

### 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, SQ Gs, 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 condition s 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 eac h potentially affected facility (i.e., the facility
- wide total annual tonnage for all hazardous waste stream s 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 wast e stream s 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) Facilitie s

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 6 6 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 g enerato r status is determined by the monthly hazardous waste generation tonnages reported by each facility in the RCRA Biennial Report: · L QGs = >13.2 tons/year · SQGs = B etween 1.3 an d 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 rul e ). “Acute hazardous” wastes determinations of generator status are not taken into consideration in this RIA .

### 104 

# Chapter 10 Distributi onal E ffect s 10 A. Definition of Distributional Effects This section presents an evaluation of potential distributional i mpa cts of the DSW final rule on various industries which are inter
related (i.e., within the same 2
- digit NAI CS economic sector, or within the same 3
- digit NAI CS industry group, or in counterpart industries) to the industrial faci lities subject to the 12 c onditions 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 defini tion 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 . W e have defined hazardous secondary materials as those which would be classified as haza rdous 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 recyc ling 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. NAI CS 56221: The Environmental T echnology C ouncil (ETC ) commenting on the 2003 DSW propos ed rule identified a potential adverse effect on the NAI CS 562211 commercial hazardous waste management industry . 20 2. NAI CS 327310: Portland cement manufacturing industry is another relatively large current receiver (i.e., consumer) of RCRA hazardous wastes f or 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/bu siness/industry/Cement_Energy_Guide.pdf, LBNL - 54036, Ernest Orlando Law rence 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 h azardous 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 econom ic 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 haz ardous waste disposers identified in the RCRA Biennial Report as facilities possibly subject to the DSW final rule , may in fact generate/handle/manage multiple ty pes of wastes (i.e., both hazardous and non
- hazardous wastes) involving multiple ty pes of indu strial operations , and therefore be classifiable according to multiple NAI CS codes . An example of the former is some NAI CS 562211 hazardous waste TSDRFs may also be classifiable as NAI CS 562212, 562213 or 562219 non - hazardous waste TSDRFs. An example of the later is NAI CS 32 or NAICS 33 manufacturing industries may also be secondarily classifiable as NAI CS 56 TSDRFs recyclers (e.g., NAI CS 3314 secondary non - ferrous metal smelter manufacturers who receive metal
- bearing secondary materials for metals recovery may also be secondarily classifiable as NAI CS 56292 materials recovery facilities ) . The two distribution al effects categories evaluated in th is RIA involve 23 industries : 1. Direct effects: Net economic gain or loss to industrial facilities engaged or s upporting recycling operations and subject to the conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions according to 8 industries grouped into three groups : o A. H azardous waste recycling industries : T his 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 : T his RIA does not evaluate the extent to which baseline hazardous waste recyclin g 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: H azardous waste transport and hazardou s secondary materials transport. 2. In direct effects : N et 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 switchove r 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: I dentified 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 secon dary materials, for 24 economic sub
- sectors (i.e., at the 2 - digit NAI CS 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, Exhibi t 10B presents estimates of potential direct distributional effects, and Exhibit 10C presents estimates of po tential 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 . The re are six important limitations in th e 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 dy namic 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 by
product 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 1 00s of upstream and downstream industries inter
- linked to affected facilities. The 23 industrie s represent two categories of industries: o 19 l ateral industries: Consisting of industries involved in hazardous and non
hazardous w aste management recycling, disposal, transport, intermediate support services. o 4 c ounterpart industries: T hree commodity groups (i.e., metals, solvents, other materials) potentially affected by baseline disposal switchover to new recyclin g alternative supply of these materials , as we ll 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 general ized 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 NAI CS 482 Rail transportation 6% of shipments o NAI CS 483 Water transportation 3% of shipments o NAI CS 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 (NAI CS 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
- sect or consists of many different industries (i.e., multiple 5 - and 6
- digit NAI CS codes), some material shifts may also occur within the same industry group (i.e., 3
- digit NAI CS code level), which is not indicated in Exhibit 10A. For example, DSW
- excluded sec ondary materials could shift from baseline hazardous waste recycling and baseline hazardous waste disposal (NAI CS 562211), to non
- hazardous waste recycling (NAI CS 56292 materials recovery ). The likelihood of this inter
- industry shift within the NAI CS 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
- RCRA
2002 -- 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 RCRA
permitted 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 on ly 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 pro cess). 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 resul t 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 assoc iated with a reduction in virgin metals production from mineral ores. 24 6. In dustrial capacity : Furthermore, this methodology implicitly assumes that adequate industrial capacity exists in other industries affected by potential distribution effects. As a tes t of this second assumption, based on the most recent (2006) industrial capacity util ization data for US manufacturing industries , industrial capacity ranged between 62% to 72% in 2006 across the following three NAI CS codes applied in this RIA as proxies f or 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, mo lybdenum 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 pe r 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 Met allurgical, 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
- innovation
group.com/ChemProfiles/Sulfuric%20Acid%20(smelter).htm

### 109 "Survey of Plant Capacity " data are only available for NAI CS 31
- 33 manufacturing sectors at http://www.census.gov/cir/www/mqc1pag2.html ) : o Proxy for solvent recycling: NAI CS 325199 all other basic organic chemical mfg = 72% capacity utilization o Proxy for metals recycling: NAI CS 331492 other nonferrous metal s secondary smelting = 65% capacity o P roxy for acids/other recycling: NAI CS 325188 al l 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 b aseline recycling expected to become excluded under DSW rule (million tons/year) Location of b aseline disposal meeting breakeven test for switchover to recycling (million tons/year) Location of e xpected

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 Prof

essional, Scientific & Tech Services 7 0.09 7 - 1% 17 55 Mgt of C om

panies/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 itemize d according to NAICS codes = 121,484 1.537 million * % change = (E
- (C+D) ) / (C+D)

### 111 Exhibit 10B Potential Direct Distributional E ffect s on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

( Potentia l Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues ) A B C D E F G (F/D) H I (G/Hx100)

Item Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of pot entially affected f acilities Potential annual

quantity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al 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 Op erations Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule : 1 H010 haz waste metals recovery 331492 S econdary

smelting, refining, alloying nonferrous metals 96 (a) +18,522 from hazardous waste disposal industries · + $6,390,10 0 ($345/ton x 18,522 tons) · - $28,634,80 0 (69% ton
we ighted from Exhibit 4C) · - $41,499, 600 decreased minimum charge revenues · + $352,1 00 (Part B permit renewal savings: 96 x $3,668/yr) Net = - $21,892,5 00 - $228,0 00 $11,433,50 0 - 1.99 5 %

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 wa stes) · + $3,664,90 0 · ($976/ton x 3,755 tons) · - $6,22 4,900 (15% ton
we ighted 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 E ffect s on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

( Potentia l Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues ) A B C D E F G (F/D) H I (G/Hx100)

Item Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of pot entially affected f acilities Potential annual

quantity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al 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 = - $2,353,3 00 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 1,13 6 tons) · - $6,639,9 00 (16% ton
we ighted 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 = 15 9

(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 broker s Up to 119 (c) NNC NNC NNC $1,758,200 NNC 4 Waste & Recycling Brokerage facilities 562 PLC 38520 haz

recyclable materials broker s 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 E ffect s on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

( Potentia l Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues ) A B C D E F G (F/D) H I (G/Hx100)

Item Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of pot entially affected f acilities Potential annual

quantity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al 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

wa ste & 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 Up to 108 (c) NNC NNC NNC $9,797,500 NNC 6 Waste & materials 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 materi als including chemicals p roducts, 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 D SW 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

hazardo us 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 E ffect s on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

( Potentia l Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual Revenues ) A B C D E F G (F/D) H I (G/Hx100)

Item Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of pot entially affected f acilities Potential annual

quantity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al 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: · *P LC 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) T otal establishment cou nts 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 facili ties 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 NAI CS 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 potenti al 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 i n Chapter 9 (Exhibit 9F ) . Exhibit 10C Potenti al Indirect Distributional Effects on 1 5 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 Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of potentially affected f acilities Potential annual

qu antity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al annual

distributional effect + = business gain

- = business loss Average

annual effect per affected facility 2002 average

annual facility revenues for PLC Distribution

effe ct as % of average facility PLC revenues 

### D . Hazardous Waste Disposal Industries Not Engaged in Recyc ling 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, nicke l & zinc mining · 3241 P etroleum & coal products mfg · 325 C hemical mfg · 327 Nonmetallic mineral (cement mfg) · 493 Warehousing · 561 A dmin. support · 562 W aste 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 (swit ch to haz. waste solvent recovery) · + 1,239 tons (33% haz. wa ste 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 increase d coal purchase (e) Net = - $760,400 - $ 17,300 By NAICS: $48,041,200 $95,18 7,000 $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 Potenti al Indirect Distributional Effects on 1 5 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 Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of potentially affected f acilities Potential annual

qu antity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al annual

distributional effect + = business gain

- = business loss Average

annual effect per affected facility 2002 average

annual facility revenues for PLC Distribution

effe ct 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 wa ste metals recovery) · +5,631 tons (32% of haz. wa ste 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 Potenti al Indirect Distributional Effects on 1 5 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 Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of potentially affected f acilities Potential annual

qu antity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al annual

distributional effect + = business gain

- = business loss Average

annual effect per affected facility 2002 average

annual facility revenues for PLC Distribution

effe ct 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 dis posal 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 Recyc ling Nor Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule : 19 Non - hazardous wa ste landfills 562 PLC 38791 non
- haz

wa ste 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 switc h to other recovery are residuals & 25% is non
- haz requiring landfill) Net = +25,456 tons +$ 943 , 5 00 ($37/ton x 25,500 tons) +$ 500 $ 3,513,700 + 0.014 %

E . subtotal = Up to 2,012 +25, 456 +$ 943,500

### 118 Exhibit 10C Potenti al Indirect Distributional Effects on 1 5 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 Ty

pe of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially Affected NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC * code (affiliated or proxy) 2005 count of potentially affected f acilities Potential annual

qu antity materials affected + = business gain

- = business loss (tons/year) Potenti al annual

distributional effect + = business gain

- = business loss Average

annual effect per affected facility 2002 average

annual facility revenues for PLC Distribution

effe ct 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 metal s production 331419 O ther nonferrous

metal primary smelting Up to 172 (c)
- 123 - $ 3,680,4 00 (from Exhibit 8B) - $21 , 4 00 $13,752,400
- 0.15 6 % 21 Virgin solvent production 325199 All Other Basic

Organic Chemical Mfg Up to 685 (c)
- 677 - $578,9 00 (from Exhibit 8 B) - $900 $70,496,800
- 0.001% 22 Virgin other materials production 325182 C arbon 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 Coa l production 2121 C oal mining Up to 1,190 (c) +2,413 (d) +$191,8 00 (e) +$ 200 $17,303,700 +0.00 12 % Net materials resource conservation (14+15+16+17) = - $4.5 million Explanatory Notes: · *P LC code = NAICS product line code. · Column D data sources: (c ) T ota l establishment cou nts 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 so lvent 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 deliv ered cost of coal = $53/ton (source: average of 0 7 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 5 0 % : (2,413 tons /year coal equivalent) x ($53/ton x 1. 5 0 S&H ) = $ 191 , 8 00 /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



## 10 C . Potential Distribution Effects on State Government s ( Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues ) Certain state governments charge hazardous waste generation taxes and fees . Under th e 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 . Dependin g 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 pay ments ” not real resource cost s . 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 s tate government hazardous waste generation fees identified for 31 states in Appendix E to this RIA . T he remaining 20 states (including the D istrict of C olumbia) either (a) c ould 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 (appl icable to eight states), or (b) c harge 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 mi llion 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 no t include eight states (DE, IL, NE, NV, NY, OH, TX, WV) for w hich further analysis needs to be conducted to determine tax rates.

### 120 

# Chapter 11 Countervailing Risks Note: This chapter presents a qualitative screening analyses which corroborate s OSW’ s 2003 and 2 007 DSW

proposed rule assertion : “EPA expect s 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 Regis ter , 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 rulem akings 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 rulem aking prop osals, listed in Exhibit 11A : Exhibit 11A 18 Public Commentors on Possible Countervailing Risks Count Ty

pe 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 o rganizations Earth Justice, Sierra Club, US Public Interest Research Group, Nat’l Environmental Trust, NW Environmental Defense Cente r, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Cente r, 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/a
4.pdf.

### 121



## 11B. Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Publi c Commentors Exhibit 11B below identifies the 12 countervailing risks the 18 public commentors requested OSW analy ze and quantify to the extent possible. Please note that the categories in the Exhibit are overlapping. They are not intended to be mutually e xclusive but rather to represent the variety of potential negative outcomes noted by the public commentors. Exhibit 11B 12 Overlapp ing Categories of Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors Item Ty

pe 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 haz ardous 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 in crease 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 wo rker fatalities/injuries in virgin materials pr oducing 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 program s that protect the environment & public health.

### 122



## 11C . Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology The co untervailing risk s addressed in this chapter represent screening analyse s and with the exception of one risk element, represent qualitative analyses . US EPA’s information and data quality guidelines 26 

### , which are based on OMB’s government
- wide policy regarding information dissemination to the public, describe mechanisms US EPA will use to ensure to the objectivity, accuracy, reliability, and un
- biasness of data and information of US EPA 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 assessment s 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 pu rposes 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 asse ssment 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: US EPA In formation Q uality Guidelines Section A.3.6 ). 

## 11D. Evaluation of 1 2 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 environment al prote ction . This qualitative risk screening analysis begins by examining the causes f or environmental damages in OSW’s study 27 of 26 US EPA 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/informatio nguidelines/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://w ww. 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 condition s of the DSW final rule exclusions. OSW selected the se condition s to safeguard against the causes uncovered in the damage case study . Th e extent to which the condition s address the major causes is a rough indicato r 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 investi gated 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 s ites, we were able to collect only very basic information.... W

hile 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 ca uses --- which account for 96% of all causes in the hi storical damage cases reference study after subtracting the 4% “unknown causes” category, and compares these causes with the implementation condition s of the DSW final rule exclusions (as listed in Exhibit 7A of this RIA , plus the legitimate recycling fact ors described in Chapter 3 ). As displaye d at the bottom of Exhibit 11C , this comparison (i.e., gap analysis) reveals that the DSW f inal rule condition s 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. F urthermore, most all exclusion s have three or more protective condition s which address each of the five known primary causes of historical recycling damages.

### 124 Exhibit 11C Compari s on of the Condition s 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 recycli ng damage cases (1982
- 2005) Exclusion 1 :

Generator
- controlled recycling involving land
- & non
- land based recycling units Exclusion 2 : T ransfer
- based recycling Exclusion 3 : Case
- by
- case variance non - wa ste determination 1. Mis
management of recyclables 40%

(81 cases) · No speculative accumulation

· Materials must be contained · Generator initially, annually & upon change notifies US EPA of offsite recycling shipments · Generator maintains offsite recycling shipment records (receipts) · Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW
e xcluded 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 recyc ling 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 DSW
excluded material as valuable commodity, or as analogous raw material, or contained (40 CFR 260.43 ) . 2. Mis
management of recycling residuals 34%

(71 cases) · Materials must be contained

· Corollary to Legitimacy Factor 1 : in cases where a hazard ous 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 r esiduals either exhibiting 40 CFR 261 subpart C hazardous characteristics or 40 CFR 261 subpart D hazardous wa ste listing descriptions Same as Exclusion 1 plus: · Recycler has financial assurance for site closure. · Does recycler have permits to manage residua ls, 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 material s are r eclaimed 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 re leased 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)(v i (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 Compari s on of the Condition s 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 recycli ng damage cases (1982
- 2005) Exclusion 1 :

Generator
- controlled recycling involving land
- & non
- land based recycling units Exclusion 2 : T ransfer
- based recycling Exclusion 3 : Case
- by
- case variance non - wa ste determination change notifies US EPA of offsite recycling shipments · Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW
excluded material as valuable commodi ty, 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 Fact or 3: manage DSW
excluded 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 proce ss 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 re gulatory 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 ques tion #4 of 5) · Recycler must have l iability 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: DSW
excluded 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 manag es secondary materials as a valuable commodity (40 CFR 260.43 ) . Same as Exclusion 1 plus: · Does th e recycler intend to legitimate ly recycle the material? (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reaso nable 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 proce ss (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 Compari s on of the Condition s 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 recycli ng damage cases (1982
- 2005) Exclusion 1 :

Generator
- controlled recycling involving land
- & non
- land based recycling units Exclusion 2 : T ransfer
- based recycling Exclusion 3 : Case
- by
- case variance non - wa ste 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 cause s 4%

(8 cases) Not analyzed in this RIA Not analyzed in this RIA Not analyzed in this RIA Duplicative c ount * of protective

conditions = 19 25 25 (actual count will vary on case - by
- ca se basis ) Expl anatory Notes: * T otal counts in this Exhibit are duplicative because they double
- count exclusion condition s as relevant to more than one recycling damage cause . Furthermore, these duplicative counts are higher than the counts of conditions displayed in E xhibits 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 r ecycling exclusions and ar e 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 - wa ste 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 Ade quate testing is assured by one of the legitimate recycling factors: whether the product or the recycling process contains hazardous constituents or exhibits a haz ardous characteristic. This factor is assumed to be current (baseline) practice because US EP A 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 landfil ls will not be excluded by the DSW rule unless they shift to legitimate recycling operations whic h conform to the exclusion requirements. In such case s , the affected material s 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 i f 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 A ll 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 h azardous 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 recordkeep ing.

### 128



## · 11D - 5. Potential Increase in Human Exposure to Hazardous Materials Based on the historical recycling damage case s reviewed in Exhibit 11C above, the two causal factors “mis
- management of recycling residuals” and the “fire or accident” (i.e., ro w i tems 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 tw o or more condition s for each exclusion. There fore, this RIA does not anticipate potential increase in human exposure.



## · 11D - 6. Potential Increase in Misdirected, Abandoned, and Lost Shipments O ne of the 208 historical recycling damag e cases in OSW’s non
- exhaustive study (FLD982085003; 1994) compiled in the “Appendix 2: Profiles of Damage Cases from Hazardous Materials Recycling Operati ons” involved a roadway truck abandoned shipment over the 24 - ye ar 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 DS W 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 mandator y, 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 respecti ve 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 (I CR) Supporting Statement for the DSW final rule. To the extent that the DSW final rule exclusions may affect shifts in RCRA regulatory status from L QG to SQG st atus (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 re quirements 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 ab andoned 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/hazw aste/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 verifi ed this pot ential effect, it seems reasonable to assume that some hazardous wastes which beco me 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 relative ly less frequent annual environmental protection and regulatory enforcement site inspections. However, OSW desi gned the condition s of the DSW final rule exclusions to minimize any adverse environmental outcome from this ty pe of possible change (i.e., redu ction 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 mann er, (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 Distri butional 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 ene rgy 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., NAI CS code 2121) , there are other industries which may be directly and indirectly affected by the DSW rule (as identi fied in Chapter 10 of this RIA) due to:

· D ire ct distributional effects : M ay arise from future shifts in se condary material s management between: 1. Decrease in business activity at c ommercial hazardous waste management industries (i.e., NAI CS code 56 2 ) 2. In crease in business activity at s econdary materials recovery /recycling industries (e.g., NAI CS 331492 secondary smelting of nonf

errous metals) . · Indirect distributional effects: M ay occur from compensating changes in production of virgin industrial materials such as: 1. Decrease in v irgin m etals production (NAI CS 331419 other nonferrous metal ore primary smelting & refining) 2. Decrease i n v irgin solvent production (NAI CS 325199 all other basic organic chemical mfg) 3. Decrease in o ther virgin materials production (e.g., NAI CS 325182 carbon black mfg) 4. In crease in c oal production (NAI CS 2121) to replace baseline hazardous wastes used as fuel f or energy recovery which may switchover to materials recovery (e.g., solvent recovery ) under the DSW final rule exclusions One study

28 of the historical trend in annual worker injuries and fatalities in the US coal mining industry indicates that worker inj ur y 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 (Exhibit s 10B & 10C, respectively ). This indicator reveals that the relati ve 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, p otential small marginal business gains (i.e., potential increases in annual work hours ) i n industrial secondary materials recovery and coal mining industries, are expected to be offs et to a large degree by pot ential 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 Fina l Rule A B C D E F G Worker IIF Statistics (2006) Item NAICS industry code s Industry Identity Fatalities Non - fatal illnesses Non - fatal

injuries Annual

distributional effect 1 2 3 331492 562211 562211 A. H az ardous wa ste recovery/recycling:

H010 me tals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals ) H020 s olvent recovery H039 o ther 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 (mi ddlemen) 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 20 0 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 1 5 21223 3241 325 327 493 561 562 D 1. 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% 1 6 1 7 1 8 562211 562211 562211 E 2. Hazardous waste non - beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment d isposal 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 2 2 331492 325199 325188 F . Virgin materials production (resources conserved by recycling switchover):

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals ) Virgin solvent production ( all o ther basic organic chemical mfg ) V irgi n other mate rials production (carbon black mfg ) Not avlble 3 3 < 100

100 100 500

600 900 - 0.156%

- 0.001%

- 0.0004% 23 2121 G . C oal mining (to replace recycling switchover loss of H050 & H061) 47 100 4,400 +0.0012% Explanatory Notes: · Columns D, E & F data s ource: US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistic s “Injuries, Illnesses & Fatalities ” (IIF) database at http://www.bls.gov/iif · Column G data s ource: Estimated potential percentage change in annual business revenues from Exhib its 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, co mp ared 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 o ther 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 m anage 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 I mpacts 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 ty pe of countervailing risk resul ting 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 regulat ory exclusion, rather than to the DSW final rule exclusions. 2. Spent lead
- acid battery recycling : OSW does not expect an increase in this ty pe 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 fin al rule exclusions contain environmentally
- p rotective condition s which may equal or exceed the conditions of baseline ( existing ) RCRA Subtitle C exemptions , OSW does not expect an increase in this ty pe 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 submitti ng 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 m aintain 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 termin ated. 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 addit ion, 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 an d 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 modifyi ng the permit term must demonstrate as part of the permit modification request that corrective action obligations at the facility have been addressed. I f 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 TSDF s: 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 ty pe 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 condition s of the exclusion, includin g 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. I f 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. I n 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 rel eases from the unit through corrective action. For these reasons, OSW does not expect an increase in this ty pe of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule. 7. Financial assurance obtained for closure at non
- excluded RCRA
- regulated units : Owner s 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 a nd 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 f inancial 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 ty pe 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 ty pe of countervailing risk res ulting 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 US EPA’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 ty pe 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 e xclusion (“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
- p rotective condition s (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 co untry 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 St ates 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 RC RA. I f 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 1 2 Sensitivity Analysi s Factors This chapter derives nine diff erent sensitivity analysis factors which are applied in Chapter 1 (Exhibit 1D) of this RIA to the bottom
line 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 200 5 data year, may fluctuate ye ar - to - ye ar 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 oth er fact ors (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 rul e.



## · Sensitivity Analysis #1: State Government Adoption Uncertainty T he bottom two rows of Exhibit 12 A present two alternati ve average annual impacts according to two scenarios: · All states adopt the respective voluntary exclusions (i.e., 100% state adopti on), or · On ly some states adopt the exclusions ; for this scenario potential non
- adopting s tates 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 Oct ober 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:

Off site 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:

Off site 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 $26 4,881 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 E st. $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:

Off site 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 E st. $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 Colum n Totals If include all states = $6.8 million $87.3 million $1.3 million $95.3 million Count of shaded cells (possible non
adoption) = 4 states 12 states Not estimated 12 states (non
duplicati ve 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 - ye ar variability (fluctuations) in hazardous waste generation and management tonnage as reported to the Biennial Report in prior data ye ars (i.e., 1991, 1993, 19 95, 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 - ye ar fluctuations in the tonnages o f 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 o f the DSW final rule will fluctuate in future ye ars, compared to the estimates presented in this RIA based on the 2005 single
- ye ar data snapshot . For purpose of illustrating the potential magnitude of future annual fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages , Exhibits 12B and 12 C pres ent 1997 - 200 5 historical time
- trend data for annual facility counts and annual hazardous waste quantities (tons/year) recycled (Exh ibit 12B) and disposed (Exhibit 12 C). 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 ye ars 1995 and before which include both w astewater and non
- wastewater data (i.e., sludge, solids, gases) , are inconsistent with the 1997 to 2005 data ye ars whi ch 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 12 C provide annual percentage deviations for two time
- trend metric s (i.e., annual facility count s and annual tonnages ), relative to the annual average values for the 1997 - 2005 histo rical period. The 1997
- 2 005 hazardous waste data trends show that:

· Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (f rom Exhibit 12 B): o - 57% to + 4 5 % by annual recycler faci lity count o - 41% to +39 % by annual tonnage recycled · Baseline hazardous waste disposal has varied (from Exhibit 12 C): 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 p ercentages over these four deviation ranges, the national impacts of the DSW rule could range from - 57% to + 4 5 % 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 19 97 - 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 - ye ar period. The purpose of this time
- trend deviation computation is to provide an aggregate indicator of how national waste quantities fluctuate year - to - ye ar.

29 http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/ biennialreport/index.htm

### 140

T here are at least four reasons for annual fluctuations in the quantity of hazardous was tes reported as disposed and recycled . One reason is within
- ye ar 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 ad dressed 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 S ensitivity 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 ye ar, the number and ty pes of wastes covered by the RCRA program may vary from OSW or RCRA
- authorized state government environmental agencies :
· A dding new waste streams to the program u sing the 40 CFR 261.11 “listing” procedure. · R emoving waste stre ams from RCRA regulation usi ng the 40 CFR 260.22 “delisting” procedure . S uch chan ges may influence the ty pes of industries, industrial facilities, and hazardous wastes that may be affected in any future ye ar by the DSW rulemaking. USEPA publishes in the Federal Register its Regulatory Agenda twice per ye ar . USEPA’s Fall 2007 Regulatory Agenda published on 10 Dec 2007, list s 31 planned actions for OSW ER --- 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 was te quantities managed under the RCRA hazardous waste program for certain industries and waste ty pe s . 30

30 Source: USEPA Fa ll 2007 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda : Part Two - Regulatory Agenda ; the 31 OSWER actions are listed on p ages 14 & 15; http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook
- fall07
- pt2.pdf. The 15 RCR A
- 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 de stined 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 wa stes 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 c ement 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 proc edures for electronic hazardous waste manifests 15. Streamlining hazardous waste management in academic laboratories

### 141 Exhibit 12 B Sensitivity Analysis #2 : 9 - Year Time - T rend (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 T otal Recovery** (%s represent deviations from average) Data Item Year Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facili ties 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 sourc e: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Report s : http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm (2) * USEPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” chan ged 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) * ** F acility row total counts overstate actual counts becau se row totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more recycling methods. 

### Exhibit 12 C S ensitivity Analysis #2 (cont’ d): 9 - Year Time - Trend (1997 - 2005) Data for RCRA Hazardous Wa ste Disposal (Onsite + Offsite) A B C D E F G (A+C +E) H (B+D+F) Landfill or Surface Impo undment Disposal ( M132 & M133, or H132) * I ncineration Disposal (M041 to M049, or H040) Other Disposal* * (M131, or H131) Row Total Disposal (%s r epresent deviations from avg ) Data Item Year Facilities Million tons Facilities Mil lion tons Facilities **** M i llion 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 2 003 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 sourc e: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Wast e “National Analysis” Biennial Report s : 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 ) * ** F acility counts for “Other Disposal” overstate actual counts because totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more disposal methods.

### 142



## · Sensitivity Analysis #3: Withi n - Ye ar Discre pancy Between G eneration & Management Ton s 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 “g enerated” in the RCRA Biennial Report by LQGs doe s 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 ty pically 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 L QG facility or (2) offsite for management at a TSDRF, rather than managed ons ite by the L QG . Because the economic impacts estimated in this RIA are proportio nal to the annual tonnage of affected materials, this within
- ye ar 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 int erval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in percentage variation between 1997
- 2005 generation quantities of RCRA hazardous wastes compared to the within
- ye ar management quantities reported to the Biennial Report over that 9
- ye ar period as displayed in Exhibit 12 D below. Exhibit 12 D 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 ton s 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/hazwas te/data/biennialreport/index.htm.



## · Se nsitivity 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. T his RIA is built upon a single year 2005 s nap shot of potentially affected i ndustries, 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 fluctu ate with changing macro - economic conditions. For example, one of the top
- 10 potentially impacted industries
--- NAI CS 32411 petroleum refining
--- is expected to grow +5.6% annually in the US through year 2010 ( source: The Freedonia Group, Cleveland OH , “ Refinery Chemicals: In dustry Study with Forecasts to 2005 & 2010”, Study #2065, June 2006, 214 pages, at: http://www.freedoniagroup.com/pdf/20 65smwe.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 dat a reporting year, some LQG and TSDRF data records in the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) may be inaccurately or incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily ) included i n th e Biennial Report database for at least three rea sons: 1. M isreporting of data 2. S tate 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 L QGs t o report state - regulated waste data, in addition to Federal
- regulated waste data 3. A s 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 f rom some facilities for was tes that are already excluded. In cluding 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 US EPA for aggregation into the Biennial Report database, and (b) the Biennial Report database has a data element which is inte nded to distinguish between “Federal regulated hazardous wastes” and “state governme nt 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 12 E below identifies 6 of the 16 existing DSW exclusions for which data may have been incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily ) repo rted 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
- produ cts, 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 L QGs (Form GM, Section 1A) and TSDRFs (Form WR, Section A) reporting to the Biennial Report data base applied in the prior RIAs. Two additional categories were identified from QA/QC random visual inspection of th 2005 dataset applied in this RI A. The percentage displayed at the bottom of Column D of Exhibit 12E may be interpreted as a rough approxim ation 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 Inc orrectly in RIA Baseline Recycling Data A B C D Ty pe of Excluded Material Description Biennial Report Data Code to Identify the Excluded Material 2005 Generation (million ton s ) 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 By
products Exhibiting Characteristic of Hazardous Waste Reported waste quantiti es 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 (co rrosivity characteristic) or · D003 (reactivity characteristic) or · D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and · G07 source code “Product & by
- product processing” 221,242*
3. Recycl ed 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 wh en reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3). · D001 (ignitability characteristic) or · D002 (corro sivity 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 exc luded

under the existing DSW exclusion for “ commercial chemical products ” wh en 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 petro leum refinery (same as NAICS code 32411). 2,915 6. Oil bearing petrochemical wa stes 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 (S IC 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 Chemic als (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 S mall quantity generators generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per m onth , 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 fac ility 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 n ot 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 tonnag es reported because SQGs almost solely send th eir 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 Assi gnment 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 Dy namac Corp for OSW). Step 1: Apply the same 30% ratio of LQGs managing wastes by rec overy /recycling (source: 4,809 recycling LQGs from Exhibit 4A Column A divided by 16,191 total L QGs 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 L QGs 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: A ssume 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 annu al 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 establi sh 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 p otential switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule, may have been overly broad (i.e., overly inclusive) in the physical/chemical ty pes 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 s avings 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 Unlik ely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C Ty pes of Disposed Haz 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 wa stes) For wastes not reporting source code G61 include: · W205 oil
- water emul sion · 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 cod es G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61, or RCRA wa ste 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 petr oleum 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 rep orting source

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 o r RCRA wa ste 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 le achate 19,508

### 147 Exhibit 12F Sensitivity Analysis #7 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlik ely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C Ty pes of Disposed Haz 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 G6 1 or RCRA wa ste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes: · K044, K045, K046, K047 exp losives 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 wa ste 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, K 149 chemical mfg product distillation bottoms or solvent recovery residues 95,140 4. 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 wa ste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or ite m 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 dr agout, drilling or other muds For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA wa ste 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 Unlik ely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C Ty pes of Disposed Haz 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 G6 1 or RCRA wa ste 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 RCR A wa ste 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 was te 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 i dentified 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 p otential 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 wast es that are disposed in on
- site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC perm itted deep
-we ll 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 b enefit estimates for each of the almost 300 different industries (Exhibit 9C) con sisting of about 5,600 of facilities (Exhibit 9B) which are generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste stream s (Exhibit 9A) which m ay be affected by the DSW rule. Fo r purpose o f 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 defi ned these classes in relation to ANSI standard s 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 “ex
ante” (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 for mulated to refl ect 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), · Ty pe 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). T he five accuracy classifications range from
- 50% :to:+100% for Class 5 “order
- of
- magnitude” ty

pe estimates, to
- 10% to +15% Clas s 1 “definitive estimate s”. 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 acc ording to the accuracy classification s c heme. The impact estimates of this RIA may be classified as a “Class 3” semi
- detailed ty pe 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 ty pify a "Class 2" ty

pe 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 wa s 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 industria l 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, physic al, 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
- e conomic (i.e., facility
- by
- facility level) breakeven test of this RIA which estimate s 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 1 2G 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 p rice @90% market price ($/ton) - 50%

f uture change (@90% price) +50%

f uture 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 S ince 2003, the US dollar price of copper has increased fiv efold, 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 1 2G 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 p rice @90% market price ($/ton) - 50%

f uture change (@90% price) +50%

f uture 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 Liq uids 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 $2 3 $69 E xplanatory 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 re lative 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
- establ ishment 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 (NAI CS 32 & 33) which represents eight of the top
- 10 4 - digit NAI CS co de 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 report 34 

### for the NAI CS 562 “Waste Management & Remediation Services” industry group which represents the 4 th 

### and 10 th 

### 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 NAI CS 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 facili ty , 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 under
estimation 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 NAI CSS 562; 2. T he 76% to 97% baseline disposal physical/chemical waste form low
- quality constraint described in Chapter 5 (Section 5B) of this RIA; 3. T he 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 Exh ibit 8A) = 2.062 million tons); 4. T he $16.7 million/year estimated net cost savings as sociate d with the 23,413 tons estimated baseline switchover to recycling (from Exhibit 9F, Column H), produces the following impact under
- estimation range:

· Lo wer - 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 dis posal 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
- comp any revenues and omit 76% low
- quality disposal tonnage : Step 1: (2.062 million tons /year total baseline disposal evaluated for switchover to recycling ) x (1 00%

–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 ) = 2 49 % under - estimation
34 Establishment and Firm Size: 2002 Economic Census: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation S ervices Subject Series, Nov 2005, report nr. EC02
- 56SS
- SZ: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0256ssszt.pdf

### 153



## · Sensitivity Analysis #1 1 : 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 d oes not attempt to estimate whether baseline hazardous waste generator facilities: · C urrently disposing their hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite, may shift the management of their disposed wastes to recycling either onsite under Exclusion 1 , or · C urre ntly 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 RIA s as summarized in Section 3C of this RIA . The consequence of this omission on the ne t 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 switho ver 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 the s e two alternative ratio s to the corresponding impact results of this DSW final rule RIA , produces the foll owing sensitivity analysis estimate range :
· Lo wer - Bound : I f 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 Commoditie s 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 Cons tituent Survey” (NHWCS) database . The NHWCS was benchmar ked 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 dispos ed 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 datab a se, in 1996 OSW mailed survey questionnaires to 221 of the largest managers (i.e., TSDRFs) of ind ustrial process RCRA hazardous wastes in the US. This facility sample also included some of the largest LQGs who manage their own hazardous wastes onsite . T he survey data responses received from 156 TSDRFs of this targeted survey sample group accounted f or 1,020 industrial process waste stream s , 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 mater ial constituents such as “ash”, “cement”, “ clay”, “concrete”, “soy bean 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 SI C code industries within the following 12 2 - digit SI C 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.g ov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br93.htm 

### 1. SI C 28 C hemicals & allied products mfg 2. SI C 29 P etroleum products mfg 3. SI C 32 Stone, clay & glass products mfg 4. SI C 33 P rimary metal mfg 5. SI C 34 F abricated metal products mfg 6. SI C 36 E lectronic & other electrical equipment mfg 7. SI C 38 Instruments & related products mfg 8. SI C 42 Trucking & warehousing 9. SI C 49 E lectric, gas & san itary services 10. SI C 50 Wholesale trade

### 156

11. SI C 73 B usiness services not elsewhere classified (nec) 12. SI C 95 Environmental quality & housing Furthermore, as listed beloe, the chemical constituent data represented hazardous wa stes managed using a broad spectrum o f 13 methods involving both: · O nsite 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 · O ffsite 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 s ervice : 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. In cineration 10. Aqueous inorganic treatment 11. Aqueous organic treatment 12. Deepwell injection 13. Land applicatio n Exhibit A 1 below presents the NHWCS data for each commodity group evaluated by the micro
- econom ic 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 micro
economic breakeven test of this RIA. Before presenting Exhibit A1 containing the NHWCS data results for identify ing commodity values in baseline disposed waset s, there are two prior “lessons learned” derived from a 1998 summary study report of the NHWCS data base 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/ty pes of RCRA hazardous wastes), because of numerous chemical co
contamin ates 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 stream s they receive for management (i.e., for disposal, materials recovery /recycling, or energy

/ fuel recovery

) . O ver 33% of facilities reported between 10 and 20 constituents in individual waste stream s . The highest number of constituents reported for a single waste stream is 287. Waste stream s reported in the survey carry over 800 different che mical constituents ( see Exhibit A3 below) . This NHWCS suggests that most L QGs 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%) co ncentrations 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 signi ficantly 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), whi c h represents a non
- metals concentration range of 1% to 10% waste volume. Benzene is the only non - metal with a median concentration below 10 0 ppm (i.e., below 0.01%). o Metals: In comparison, m edian concentrations of three of four prevalent metals

— lead,

c hromium, 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 yi eld a relatively higher tonnage of wastes containing non
- metal commodity values compared to waste tonnages containing metal commodity values. Exhibit A 1 Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantitie s, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value A B C D E F G Co mmo dity Co ncentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes
Item Commodity Type Tonnag e & percentage of NHWCS wa ste streams with commodity present Count & percent of NHWCS waste streams >0ppm Minimum

ppm Maximum

ppm Tonnage - we ighted

mean ppm 90% of market

p rice ($/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 A 1 Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantitie s, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value A B C D E F G Co mmo dity Co ncentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes
Item Commodity Type Tonnag e & percentage of NHWCS wa ste streams with commodity present Count & percent of NHWCS waste streams >0ppm Minimum

ppm Maximum

ppm Tonnage - we ighted

mean ppm 90% of market

p rice ($/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 Nicke l 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. Wt d 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 A 1 Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantitie s, Potential Recovery Yield, & Market Value A B C D E F G Co mmo dity Co ncentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes
Item Commodity Type Tonnag e & percentage of NHWCS wa ste streams with commodity present Count & percent of NHWCS waste streams >0ppm Minimum

ppm Maximum

ppm Tonnage - we ighted

mean ppm 90% of market

p rice ($/ton) NHWCS NHWCS NHWCS NHWCS (74%)* * Non - duplicative total = 1,577,620 (77%) 262 ( 70 %) Explanato ry Note s : · Column A: C hemicals for each commodity group identifie d 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 chemical s 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 benze nes. 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 ass ociated one or more disposed waste streams co ntaining 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 o f individual waste streams reportin g 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 th e chemical constituent in the NHWCS database. · Column G: To account for possible perceived or real lower qual ity compared to virgin
- materials, r ecovered 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.Metal Prices.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 fo r 47% toluene & 53% xylene. · * * Other d ata s ources for commodities in disposed wastes for which there is no NHWCS d ata:

o Row 15: Received verbal price quote from Atlantic Equ ipment 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 catalys t). 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 = Re medial 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 concentrati on 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 car bon 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 carb on 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 de termine 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 , yi eld ed 32,575 rows of data, each row representing a single chemical/material constituent for a single waste stream at a sing le facility . However, 21,807 (67%) of the 32,575 data rows indicat ed 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
- wei ghted m eans because they signify37 :
· Mi ssing ppm data, or · N on - numerical data such as: o “None/Not Applicable (NA)”, Not Tes ted (NT)” o “Present at Unknown Concentration (PR)” o “Not Detected” o “L ess Than Detection Limit (ND)” o “Trace (TR)” o “Don't Know (DK) ” Exhib it A2 below presents the data code crosswalk OSW used to analy ze the disposed hazardous waste data extracted from the 1996 NHWCS database, to identify commodity constituents relevant for assigning to eac h of the three commodity groups/ sub
- groups displayed in Exhibit A1 . This crosswalk was necessary because the 1996 NWHCS d atabase is based on the pre - 2001 RCRA Biennial Reports coding system (USEPA revised the RCRA Biennial Reporting codes beginning with data year 2001) . S ee pages 77 to 81 of the 2001 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report “Instructions and Forms” (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/ins
frms.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 comp ared 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.p df

### 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

Physical Form Codes ** RCRA Regulatory Codes Commodity Sub
- Group NHWCS form codes = Bxxx NHWCS regulat ory 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 wa stes · 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 cont aminated soils) · B519 = W519 other inorganic sludge · D005 barium · D006 cadmium · D007 chromium · D008 lead · D009 mercury · D010 selenium · D011 silver · F006, F00 7, F008, F009 metal electroplating · F010, F011, F012 metal heat treating · F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum · F035 inorganic wood preserv ative waste (arsenic or chromium) · K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008 i norganic pigment mfg sludge & res idues (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 p etroleum 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 organic
bearing 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% a cid 3B. Caustics · B108 + B109 + B11 0 = W110 caustic aqueous waste without cyanides · K031, K043; K097, K098, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, K131, K132 pesticide mfg wa stewaters, 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

Physical Form Codes ** RCRA Regulatory Codes Commodity Sub
- Group NHWCS form codes = Bxxx NHWCS regulat ory 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 . ** T here 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 Bie nnial 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 dispo sed hazardous waste data from the 1996 NHWCS database . This list is consolidated from the 32,575 constituent datapoint rows p roduced by query of the 1996 NHWCS database for di s posed 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 wh ich 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 w ith 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 [N
Methylpiperidine 6. 1 - Penten e 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 - tri fluoroethane [Freon 113] 15. 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane [Vinyl trichloride] 16. 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane 17. 1,2 - Dichlorobenzene [o
Dichlorobenzene] 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 [m
Dichlorobenzene] 30. 1,3 - Dichlor opropene [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
- tert butyl
- 4hydroxybenzyl) benzene 35. 1,4 - Butanediol 36. 1,4 - Cyclohexanedimeth anol 37. 1,4 - Dichloro
- 2 - butene, mixed isomers 38. 1,4 - Dichlorobenzene [p
Dichlorobenzene] 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 [beta
Chloronaphthalene] 55. 2 - Chlorophenol [o
- Chlorophenol] 56. 2 - Ethoxyethanol acetate [2
- EEA][Cellosolveacetate] 57. 2 - Ethoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol mo noethyl ether][Cellosolve] 58. 2 - Ethyl
- 1 - hexanol 59. 2 - Ethyl
- 1,3 - butylene glycol 60. 2 - Ethyl
- 1,3 - propanediol 61. 2 - Ethylhe xanal 62. 2 - Hexanone 63. 2 - Hydroxyethyl methacrylate [Glycol methacrylate] 64. 2 - Mercaptoethanol 65. 2 - Methoxy
- 1 - propyl acetate 66. 2 - Methoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol mo nomethyl 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
- Picolin e][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
- oc tane] 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 - Dichlorophen ol 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
- Di
tert - 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 [p
Bromo 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 - Vinylcyclohexen e 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 diisocyanat e [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 [Hexane dinitrile] 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 [alpha
BHC] 182. alpha
- Methylstyrene 183. a lpha
- 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 o xide s 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 [beta
BHC] 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 [Epoxi de 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. Bromodichlo romethane [Dichlorobromomethane] 243. Bromoform [Tribromomethane] 244. Bromomethane [Methyl bromide] 245. Brow

n/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 Dicarboni c acid, mixture 253. C6
- C12 Aliphatics 254. C 6 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 re sinate 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. Chloroacet one 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. C hrysene 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
- Hexachlorocyclohe xane [delta
BHC] 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. Dichlorodifluorome thane [CFC
- 12] 346. Dichloropropane, mixed isomers 347. Dicyanodiamide 348. Dicyclopentadiene 349. Dieldrin 350. Diethyl phthalate 351. Diethylene glycol
- trimethylpropane
adipate 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 - xylen es (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
- re fined 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 dinitri le] 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. HXCDF S 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. Imidaz ole 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. Isoparaffi nnic 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 mi xture [Dipentene] 484. Lindane [gamma
Hexachlorocyclohexane][gamma
BHC] 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 este r] 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. Mi xed 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 - Hexan e 542. N - Methyldiethanolamine 543. N - Methylpyrrolidone [1
- Methyl
- 2 - pyrrolidinone] 544. N -Nitrosodi
- n - propylamine [Di
- n propylnitrosamine] 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
- Py ridinecarbonitrile] 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 mo nohydrate 580. Oily sludge 581. Oil/Oils 582. Organic Es ters 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. Pentachlorobenze ne 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
- formald ehyde 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 trie ther 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 te trafluoroborate 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. Py rene 671. Py ridine 672. Py ridoxal
- 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. Si lane [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. Sod ium 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 d ibasic 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 [Butanedi nitrile] 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, mo noester 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. Toluene diamine [Diaminotoluene] 766. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 767. Toxaphene [Chlorinated camphene] 768. trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene 769. trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropylene [trans
1,3 - Dichloropropene] 770. trans - 1,4 - Dichloro
- 2 - butene 771. Tributylamine 772. Trichloroethylene 773. Trichlorofluoromethane [Trichlo romonofluoromethane][CFC
11] 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 p ropane 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 RC RA 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 belo w) . It should be noted that this RIA applies in Appendix C , these same labor unit costs for the purpose of estimating the administrative
- (paperwork) ty pe condition s of the DSW final rul e exclusions . Exhibit B1 Labor Wage Rates (2007 $/hour) Note: These sam e labor wage rates are also applied in Appendix C to this RIA A B C D E F (D x E) Item Labor Category National Compensation Survey Category* Labor Loading Multipliers (Benefits* + O verhead**) Unloaded Labor Rate ($/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: htt p://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., medic al, 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 organiz ation 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 th is RIA assumes that obtaining a US EPA 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 SQG s. 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 mat erials 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 - ye ars for a process technician and a manager (assuming a 3
- ye ar capital recovery factor (CRF) at 7% is 0.38105). A turn over of the process technician is a ssumed to occur once every 4 - ye ars (assumed a 4
- ye ar 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 Coll ection 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 base d 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 di rect labor costs for a staff engineer to conduct annual record keeping associated with RCRA hazardous waste management . L abor hours and labor cost (2007$) are estimated based on DPRA professional judgment:

### 172

· CESQGs = 3.0 hour s at a cost of $234 per year per - facility · SQG s = 6.0 hours at a cost of $468 per year per - facility · LQG s = 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 n o reporting Biennial reporting requi rements 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 ho urs 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 do cumenting two other conditions
- “no land placement” and “track offsite shipments”. This unit cost is based on Supporting Statement for USEPA I nformation Collection Request Nr. 976.13 “The 2007 Hazardous Waste Report,” September 18, 2007 

## B6. 40 CFR 264 Subparts I to DD ( TSDF ) Storage Require ments 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” TSD RF 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 m inimum 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
- ye ar expiration date Option 2: the TSDRF may file a termination request to th e 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 Analys is 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 co ntainer 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 baselin e (pre
- rule) RCRA hazardous waste recycling facilities (TSDRFs) by material ty pe 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 (P re - 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 Shipme nts (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 (P re - 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 [midp oint= $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 I nformation Collection Request (I CR) Number 801.15 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifes t 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 manif est was determined to be $48 for SQGs an d LQGs (2007$). 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
-NAI CS re cycling 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. L QGs 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 per
facility expense of $733/year (2007 $). This cost is incurred on an annual basis and is based on USEPA Supporting Statement for In formation 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 (TSDF s) 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. L QGs and SQGs are required to prepare and maintain a emergency plan. The cost for a LQG f acility 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 e xpense of $94 per ye ar (2007$). This cost is incurred on an annual basis. This unit cost is based on USEPA “Supporting Statement for In formation 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 was te 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 t o Meet the 12 Condition s of the DSW Final Rule Exclusion s (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 i f 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 i s 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 w astes 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 by products being reclaimed. These restrictions on speculative accumulati on 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 impac ts 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 cost s 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 charge s because larger loads are shipped. Unit costs are a combination of disposal, recycling, trans port 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 becom es 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 US EPA Initially & Every 2 - Years Based on DPRA professional judgment, c osts were estimated for generators to complete an initial and biennial (every two years) re
notification of RCRA exclusion for their recycled wastes. This RIA assumes that each notification (i.e., initial and subsequent biennial re - notification) require s a labor burden of: · 0 .64 hours (38 minutes) project manager · 1.06 hours (64 minutes) staff eng ineer · 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 yi elds an average cost estimate of $122 for each notification action (2007$). An additional $5 per notification in miscellaneous copies and postage cost is also include d. 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 - est imation in this RIA for this condition (i.e., a source of industry net cost savings under
- estimation) , as evidenced by two alternati ve estimates of notification labor time contained in two relevant existing “Information Collection Request” (I CR) supporting statements associated with two existing RCRA
- related notification forms: · IC R 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 . Th is IC R 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 . ” · IC R for the “ RCRA Subtitle C Site I dentification Form “ (E PA Form 8 700 - 13 A/B, revised Oct 2005; available in docket ID nr. EPA
- HQ
- RCRA
- 2005 - 0003 at http://www.regulations.gov) : This IC R estimates 20 minutes to prepare a Site ID Form and 10 minutes to update it . T hese numbers are probably more appropriate for this DSW final rule exclusion condition (rather than the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity IC R), because the burden estimates in the Biennial Report I CR reflect an assumption that reporter s on a regular submittal cycle will develop efficiencies from subm itting the Site ID form, unlike the N otification I CR, 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 s ubmittal and hence less time burden in comparison with notifications occur ring more or less randomly as is the case with notifications addressed by the Notification I CR. Most of the data elements are easily collected (e.g., name, address, NAI CS 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 ty pe of material(s) recycled, which would require su bmission of a revised notice with new certification (frequency and annual count of future re
certifications 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 l abor wage rates from Exhibit B1 yi elds an average added cost estimate of $123 for certification of the one
- time notification (2007$). I f 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 ye ars) = $62 /year per facility ). 

## C4 . Generator Submits Petition to US EPA 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 re gulating fertilizer by

products as a proxy . The labor burden was estimated using labor hour estimates from the "Supporting Statement for USEPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.14 I dentification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions", September 13, 20 04 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 lin e 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. 

## C 7 . Recycler Has Liability Insurance for Accidents This RIA assumes no additional costs will b e 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 w ere estimated in thi s 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 estimat ed 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. C osts inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economics Analysis last rev ised 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 tank s, triple rinse two 55 gallon drums, associated piping. Pressure Cleaning, 4 0 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
- RC RA
- 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 CERCL A lia bility 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 c ondition 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., comp any 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 fa cility in federal, state, and local

environmental files and databases at an estimated cost of $100 per event. 40

40 Firstar report is quot ed to DPRA Inc at $95 (0 9/ 0 1/20 05 ) . 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 est imated 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
- ye ar 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 a udits 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 ever y o ne to five years. 41 

### The midpoint of this re
- audit frequency range is every 3 - ye ars, suggesting that this RIA’s annual re
- audit assumption over
- estimates the average annual unit cost per generator by 300% (i.e., (3
- ye ars)/(1
- ye ar)). On the other hand, d ata 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 diligen ce event. 42 

### Applying the midpoint annual re
- audit frequency of 3
- ye ars 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 Goo d 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 - p rofit 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 wheth er 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/ye ar) + ($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 v isits 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 uni t 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 repo rted 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 $223 per ton for bulk hazardous was te with stabilization (2007$). · RCRA Subtitle D non
- hazardous waste comm ercial landfill costs were estimated using the National Solid Wastes Management Association 2004 annual survey 43



### . The US national average tipping fee for non
- hazardous disposal was reported as $37 per ton in bulk quanti ties 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 Manage ment Association (http://www.nswma.org) 2005 tip fee survey (2004 data) National Average. 44 Telephone communication with Mr. Earl Fin nder, 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 fro m 2 004 dollars t o 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 ye ar 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 ($1,000/1 00 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 NAI CS code) and residual disposal. N on - 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, ful l 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$) Baseline Cost Element 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/mil e $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 D 4: · 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 F uel 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 fa cility 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 Opti ons” 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 stream s with facilities tending to ship within
- state the transpo rtation distribution was skewed to the 250 and 350 mile range. · For waste stream s 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 stream s 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 stream s were shipped within state. Exhibit D3

Weighted Average Tra nsportation 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 10 th Percentile (miles) Weighted

Distance to Subtitle C L andfill (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 Generators 1 

### (2007$)

Percentile (%) Distance to Metals

Recovery Facilities for Top 95% of Waste Shipped (miles, n = 51) Average Distance

per 10 th Percentile (miles) Weighted

Distance to Metals Recovery (miles) Unit Cost

($/mile) Wei ghted

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 analy

tical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor . The analy tical 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 W astewater 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 tre atment 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 th e 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 , 4 th 

### 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 Exh ibit 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 ty pe of metals present in the waste). The generally lowe r 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 ty pical price charged by a metals recovery facility based on the 1993 data provided in Cushnie. One recycler that was contacted provided an average 19 98 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 s ys tem. 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 ty pically occurring within the same parent company an d 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 estimate d 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 rec yc le rs 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 perio d. 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 $0.26/lb Assumptions: Step 1: Used 1993 cost data provided in Exhibit 7
- 1 of Cushnie, George C., CAI Engineering, "Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations," prepared for NCMS/NAMF. Step 2: E liminated seven data records from Cushnie that do not provide either shipping distance, quantity shipped, or unit cost. Based on inspection, four records eliminated as statistical outliers. Step 3: Assumed the following distances: Category < 500 miles = 250 miles, Category 500 to 1,000 miles = 750 miles, Category 1,000 to 1,500 miles = 1,250 miles, Category 1,500 to 2,000 miles = 1,750 miles, and Category 2,000 to 2,500 miles = 2,250 miles. Step 4: Assumed LQG and 90
- day storage if > 26,400 lbs gener ated annually. Step 5: Assumed a full shipment size of 15 tons based upon USEPA’s Common Sense Initiative report. Step 6: Assumed minimum of 4 shipments/year (i.e., 90
- day storage limit) for LQGs. Step 7: Used 1998 ECHOS transportation unit price estimates ($/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 inc reased 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 gall on ($976/ton, 2007$). No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the same company . It is assumed that transfers are ty pically occurring within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum fee, unlike a commerc ial 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 s tatus 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, bat tery 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 q uantity 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 operatio n 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
- ye ar life for the equipment at a 15% discount rate. Costs are assum ed 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 i dentified using the offsite USEPA ID (receiver) of waste stream s 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 asy mptotic limits, with a minimum unit cost for acid recovery of approximately $163 tons per year. Commercial offsite recovery unit co sts 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 ty pically 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 mini mum 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 $180 per ton.
Exhibit D13 Estim ated Acid Regeneration Offsite Recycling Costs (2007$) 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) + $1,810) * 1.30 1 Costs inflated from 1 999$ 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 b y- 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 ty

pically paid by the generators of the residuals, but in the case of co mmercial 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 th e 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 p etroleum 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 $223 per ton (2007$) u sing the GDP Price Deflator January 2008. Because the above
mentioned 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 cos t 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 di sposal is estimated as half a full load ( i.e., nine tons = half load) totaling $2,004 (2007$). 2. Subtitle D landfi ll 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 survey 49 

### . The national average tipping fee for non
- haz ardous disposal was $35 per ton in bulk quantities ($37 per ton inflated to 2007$). No minimum charge i s 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 stabilizati on technology called Super Detox®. Estimates for disposal of EAF range from $100 to $175 50 

### (1999$) to $150 to $200 51 

### (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 resid ual 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 Was tes 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/f e atures/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 (20 07$) Cost Element 1 ($/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 200 7 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 B 

### ulk contaminated soil unit cost from: http://www.etc.org/costsurvey 8.cfm (i nflated 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

· In itial 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 analy tical samples (i.e., (20 hours) x ($70.83/hour)). The estimated labor hours are from “Supportin g Statement for Information Collection Request (I CR) Number 0820.10: Hazardous Waste Generator Standards”, January 2008. 2. Average analy

tical cost of $852/facility for analysis of three samples (i.e., ($284/sample) x (3 samples )); source: RACER 2005 unit cos ts 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% C RF 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 provi ded 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
- sh ipment to collect, prepare, and submit the analy

tical sample (i.e., (2.0 hours) x ($31.41/hour) ($2007). 2. Average analy

tical cost of $284 for analysis of each waste stream for disposal purposes (e.g., TCLPs, BTU values, or other regulated constituents). Tot al 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 w aste management with system ty pes M013 (secondary smelting), M021 (fractionation/distillation), and M031 (acid regeneration) were reviewed. Due to the limited number of facilities reporting wastes managed with system ty pes M013 and M031, all such faciliti es were reviewed. Facilities reporting management by

### 194

system ty pe 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 s ys tem ty pe 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. Si x 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 balance d 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 re cycling 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 smeltin g (M013). A total of seven facilities were used in the percent residual calculation. Residual waste stream s could not be identified for the remaining facilities. The management system ty pe reported for the residuals identified for secondary smelting (M0 13) system processes are: o M061 (fuel blending), o M111 (cementitious stabilization) o M112 (other stabilization) o M119 (stabilization
- ty pe unknown), and o M132 (landfill). Five of seven waste generating facilities managed their secondary smelting residuals by s tabilization (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 ty

pes: 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 stream s could not be identifi ed. 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 co ntaminants (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 ty pe. A total of 23 facilities were reviewed, o f which five facility residual waste stream s could not be identified. Residuals were reported managed by : o M039 (other recovery
- ty pe 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
- ty pe 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 facili ties 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 residu als 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 a ssumptions 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 definitio n 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 hazardo us 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

· Re cycling: 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 o f 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 MAC T 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/L andfill: 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 landf ill. The cost is estimated as $378 per ton ($2007). · Residual Characteristics: Residuals generation from metals recovery was estimated using 1999 Biennial Report data. Waste stream s at selected recycling facilities were reviewed by comments, disposal sys tem ty pe, and origin to determine the likely waste stream s 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 stream s currently recycled and 5% of the mass for waste stream s currently disposed. The remaining mass fraction is volatilized out the stack in the smelting process. The hazardous fraction of the residuals were determined by reviewi ng the waste codes for the waste stream s reporting metals reclamation. Waste stream s reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals that would be characteristically hazardous waste. 95% of the metals recovery residual waste volume and freq uency of waste stream s 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 resid uals 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 stream s reporting solvent recycling. Waste stream s reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals that would be characteristically hazardous waste. For solvent recycling, approxi mately 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 stream s reporting acid regeneration. Waste stream s reporting characteristi c 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 hazardo us wastes which are assumed in this RIA to become non
hazardous 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 assum es this fee is passed on to the generator and inc ludes it with the generator fee impact estimate. In the ty pical 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

5 00 - 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

wa ste that retain the waste onsite for disposal or wh o ship it offsite to a facility ow ned 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 wa ste $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

5 00 - 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 mo nitoring 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

5 00 - 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

wa ste 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 fe e 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

5 00 - 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 b iennial 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 $40,0 00/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

5 00 - 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 e quals 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 ac tivity 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 non
haz waste fee $34.00/ton

$13.70/ton 42 SD NA NA 43 TN Annual gen erator 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

4 5 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 To nnage 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

5 00 - 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. * T he 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.