ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

OF THE PROPOSED

SIGNIFICANT NEW USE RULE FOR MER CURY-CONTAINING FLOW METERS, NATURAL GAS MANOMETERS, AND PYROMETERS

Prepared by:

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20460

October 10, 2008Economic Analysis of SNUR i U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers CONTRIBUTORS

The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Timothy Lehman. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-010.Economic Analysis of SNUR ii U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers ABSTRACT

This report estimates the costs of the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for elemental mercury used in the following products : flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers. Historically, elemental mercury ha s been used in many industrial and consumer products, due to its unique properties. Use of elem ental mercury in products can lead to releases to the environment during manuf acturing, recycling, or dispos al. Under certain conditions, mercury in the environment can cause adverse effects in humans and wildlife. Some State governments have restricted mercury use in produc ts and have requested federal action to bolster these efforts. In 2006, EPA committed to pursue reduc tions in mercury used in switches, relays, and measuring devices. In 2007, EPA issued a Si gnificant New Use Rule (SNUR) for elemental mercury used in certain switches previously inst alled in motor vehicles. EPA has now identified three more mercury-containing products that ha ve cost-effective substitutes and are no longer manufactured. The products are flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers.

The SNUR would require person s to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elementa l mercury for use in any of the three products. To submit this SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost, since EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Be cause mercury-containing flow meters, natural gas manome ters, and pyrometers are an olde r, established technology, EPA assumes that a firm will submit only pre-existing test data. Thus, it is assumed that no testing

costs will occur as a result of this SNUR.

By avoiding a Significant New Use, a firm can avoid submission and testing costs, but may incur other compliance costs. The firm may also incur “hidden” costs, not quantified here, for example if it foregoes profita ble opportunities to us e the chemical in an application that would be a Significant New Use or limits produc tion volume to avoid a Significant New Use.

Costs are estimated for mercury at one repres entative site, and reflect SNUR restrictions specific to this chemical. EPA receives only a ha ndful of notices per year due to SNURs. The number of firms affected but not making subm issions to EPA is not known, and costs are not aggregated.Economic Analysis of SNUR iii U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTORS................................................................................................................... ........ i

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ....... ii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........ iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Products Covered by this SNUR..................................................................................... 3

1.1.1 Flow Meters .............................................................................................................. ...... 3

1.1.2 Natural Gas Manometers ................................................................................................ 4 1.1.3 Pyrometers ............................................................................................................... ....... 7 1.2 Impact of a SNUR........................................................................................................... 8

2.0 COSTS OF A SIGNIFICANT NEW USE RULE (SNUR), BY OPTION .................... 9 2.1 Submit SNUN (Option 1) ............................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Costs for Submitting a SNUN....................................................................................... 10 2.2 Decide Not to Produce Chemical (Option 2)................................................................ 11

2.3 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission .............................................................................. 11 2.4 Potential for Subseque nt Regulatory Actions............................................................... 11

3.0 EXPORT NOTIFICATION COSTS ............................................................................ 12

4.0 AGENCY COSTS ........................................................................................................ 12

5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES........................................................................................ 13 5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)................................................................................. 13 5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) .................................................................. 14 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).................................................................................. 14 5.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ................................................. 14

5.5 Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights ................................................................................. 14 5.6 Executive Order 12866: Regulat ory Planning and Review .......................................... 14

5.7 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice ........................................................... 15

5.8 Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform.............................................................. 15

5.9 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children ........................................................... 15

5.10 Executive Order 13132: Federalism ............................................................................. 15

5.11 Executive Order 13175: Tribal Governments............................................................... 15 5.12 Executive Order 13211: Energy S upply, Distribution, or Use ..................................... 15

APPENDIX A INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES .............................................................. A-1 A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates.............................................................................. A-1

A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors.................................................................................... A-5

APPENDIX B COSTS FOR SNUN ....................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C AGENCY COSTS .......................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D REFERENCES ............................................................................................... D-1Economic Analysis of SNUR iv U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mercury Content in Produ cts affected by the Proposed SNUR ...................................... 1 Table 2: Industries potentially aff ected by the SNUR, by NAICS Code........................................ 2

Table 3: CAS Number and Synonyms for Mercury ....................................................................... 3 Table 4: Manometer Regulati on Information, by State .................................................................. 6 Table 5: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR ................ 9 Table 6: Cost of Requirement to Submit a SNUN ($2007) 1 ......................................................... 11

Table A-1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates.........................................................A-4 Table A-2: Weighted Average Wages for I ndustrial Hygienists – Manufacturing................A-5

Table A-3: Derivation of Inflation Factors..............................................................A-6 Table B-1: Industry Costs for SNUN.....................................................................B-1 Table C-1: Agency Costs for SNUN and Ot her Submission Review and Processing.............C-2Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT ’s) analysis of the potential co sts incurred as a result of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) being proposed for elemental mercury used in the following products: flow meters, natural ga s manometers, and pyrometers. EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when potential uses could result in in creased exposure to or re leases of the substance and in turn, could present an unrea sonable risk to health or the environment. In contrast to PreManufacture Notification (PMN) requirements, which apply mainly to manufacturers and importers (40 CFR §720.22), the SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers and importers (40 CFR §721.5). Table 1 presents su mmary information on the products regulated under this proposed SNUR, including the relevant applications and ranges of the amount of mercury used in each product type.

Table 1: Mercury Content in Produc ts affected by the Proposed SNUR

Mercury-Containing

Product Applications Hg per Unit (g) Hg per unit (lbs)

Flow Meter All up to 5,000 up to 11

Manometer Natural Gas Pipelines 3,175 to 4,536 7 to 10

Pyrometer All 5 to 10 .01 - .02

Source: IMERC 2004; Piehler 2007; Environment Canada 2004Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 2 Table 2 provides summary information on the in dustries potentially affected by this SNUR.

Note that the table is not intended to be entire ly comprehensive; it pr ovides a sample of the potentially affected industrie s for illustra tion purposes.

Table 2: Industries potentially affe cted by the SNUR, by NAICS Code

NAICS Name Description

2211 Electric Power Generation,

Transmission and

Distribution This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the gene ration facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.

221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating water treatment plants and/or operating water supply systems. The water supply system may include pumping stations, aqueducts, and/or distribution mains. The water may be used for drinking, irrigation, or other uses.

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and

Related Structures

Construction This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the construction of oil and gas lines, mains, refineries, and storage tanks. The work performed may include new work, reconstruction, re habilitation, and repairs. Specialty

trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction. All structures (including buildings) that are integral parts of oil and gas networks (e.g., storage tanks, pumping stations, and refineries) are included in this industry.

3315 Foundries This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in pouring molten metal into molds or dies to form castings. Establishments making castings and further manufacturing, such as machining or assembling, a specific manufactured product are classified in the industry of the finished product. Foundries may perform operations, such as cleaning and deburring, on the castings they manufacture. More involved processes, such as tapping, threading, milling, or machining to tight tolerances, that transform castings into more finished products are cla ssified elsewhere in the manufacturing sector based on the product being made.

334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial

Process Variables This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing instruments and related devices for measuring, displaying, indicating, recording, transmitting, and controlling industrial process variables. These instruments measure, display or control (monitor, analyze, and so forth) industrial process variab les, such as temperature, humidity, pressure, vacuum, combustion, flow, level, viscosity, density, acidity, concentration, and rotation.

486110 Pipeline Transportation of

Crude Oil This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the pipeline transportation of crude oil.

486210 Pipeline Transportation of

Natural Gas This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the pipeline transportation of natural gas from processing plants to local distribution

systems.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2001; U.S. Census Bu reau 2003a, U.S. Census Bureau 2007a-eEconomic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 3 Elemental mercury has many unique properties that make it extremely useful across a number of industries and applications. It is non-reactive over a wide-ran ge of temperatures (Leopold, 2002) but conducts elect ricity. It is a dense metal a nd expands or contracts at a relatively constant rate across a variety of temperatures. Furthe rmore, it easily bonds with many other metals to form a variety of amalgams, them selves with different characteristics (Lenntech). As a result of these unparalleled characteris tics, mercury can be found in thermometers, thermostats, barometers, manometers, s phygmomanometers, hydrometers, hygrometers, batteries, medical instruments, dental amalgams , switches, relays, and many more products and

components.

Table 3 lists the generic or specific chemi cal name and CAS number for the chemical

covered under this SNUR.

Table 3: CAS Number a nd Synonyms for Mercury

CAS Number Synonyms

7439-97-6 Mercury (Hg)

1.1 Products Covered by this SNUR

Since the proposed SNUR applies to three distinct products (each possessing its own unique market trends, regulatory history, exposure risk, etc.), the introduction discusses each product individually.

1.1.1 Flow Meters

Flow meters measure the flow ra te of liquids or gases. Histor ically, they have been used in civil service appli cations (e.g., water treatment plants, sewage plants, power stations, and other industrial applications) (G alligan et al. 2003). Environm ent Canada’s 2004 report entitled “Sources of Mercury: Mercury-c ontaining Products” indicates th at mercury-containing flow meters can contain up to 5,000 grams of mercury (Environment Canada 2004). In recent years, many states have banned merc ury-containing flow meters, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. Research undertaken in preparation of the proposed SNUR found no data indicating that mercury-containing flow meters are still produced. Furthermore, many mercury-free alternatives exist, including differential pressure devices, positive displacement meters, velocity meters, an d mass meters. Figure 1 shows a turbine flow

meter.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 4 At the outset of the research into flow meters, an exhaustive Internet search was conducted of both foreign and domestic instrument manufactur ers as well as major auction houses for mercury-containing flow meters; the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) 1 was also searched. These initial online searches were later supplemented by phone

conversations with several flow me ter manufacturers and distributors. 2 In all cases, none of the contacted companies made, sold, imported, or knew of any other companies that made, sold or imported mercury-containing flow me ters. Also during the course of this research, no special uses (e.g. flow meter calibration devices that cont ain mercury) or exceptions were identified. Based on the availability of newe r and more accurate alternatives, it is likely that there are few remaining in use; however a de finitive count of mercury-contai ning flow meters could not be

determined or estimated.

1.1.2 Natural Gas Manometers

Manometers are used in numerous applications to measure air, gas and liquid pressure.

Manometers used in the natural gas industry contain between 7 to 10 pounds of mercury (Piehler 2007). As with other types of manometers, breaka ge poses one risk of exposure; in addition, mercury sometimes spills when these manometers are removed from the pipelines. In the last ten years, several natural gas and pipeline companies have been named in settlements or lawsuits citing mercury contamination around metering st ations (Schliefstein 2007; U.S. DOJ 2002). Given the large quantity of merc ury per unit in natural gas manometers and the risks posed by

1 IMERC requires that all companies in its member states that are planning to sell mercury-containing products in their jurisdictions submit a notification to the Clearinghouse every three years with information on the amount of mercury in each unit of the product, and in all of the products put on the market in the United States.

2 The following flow meter manufacturers and distributors were contacted: Omega Engin eering, Inc., Utility Supply of America, and Lake Monitors, Inc. Figure 1: Turbine Flow Meter ( Omega Engineering

Inc. 2008 )Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 5 maintenance, it is likely that natural gas manome ter repair and maintenance create further spill and atmospheric exposure risks.

The 2005 Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering describes how pressure differentials have historically been measured in natu ral gas pipelines. This is done with the use of a liquid in a U-shaped tube and “mer cury is generally used in commercial orifice meters of this type” (Lyons, 2005). In a U-shaped tube manometer, one end is left open to the atmosphere; the other is exposed or connected to the source being measured. If the pressure measured is higher than atmospheric pressure, th e liquid (mercury or otherwise) moves toward the open end of the tube. If the pressure measur ed is lower than atmospheric pressure, the liquid moves away from the open end. The difference betw een the liquid levels on either side of the tube provides a reading relative to atmospheric pressure. Figure 2 provides a visual depiction of a typical mercury-containing U-Tube manometer.

In a report entitled “Fundamentals of Orif ice Recorders”, the American School of Gas Measurement and Technology (ASGMT) describes me rcury-containing orifice meters as the earliest meters used to measure pressure differences in the natural gas industry. The author writes that there are currently “several manufacturers and configurations of mercury meters” (Reynolds, 2007). However, he follows this sentence by noting that health and environmental concerns due to the mercury content within the devices have lead to their decreased use in industry. The Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc.’s (CEESI’s) Technical Li brary includes several

articles from the Internationa l School of Hydrocarbon Measuremen t Publications reiterating the

historical and declined us e of mercury orifice meters used in natural gas measurement. An article entitled “Operation and Maintenanc e of Single Bellows Meters” stat es that “the bellows orifice meter was developed to replace the mercury me ter which has been the industry standard for measuring differential pressur e” (Beall 1979). Another article in this publication entitled “Bellows-Type Orifice Meters” notes how th e bellows-type meter has found “widespread application and increasing popularity in orifice meteri ng” (Crabtree 1979). It is important to note that the articles in this public ation were written in 1979, indicating that the shift from mercury to bellows-type orifice meters was appare ntly underway nearly 30 years ago. Figure 2: Typical Mercur y-Containing U-Tube Manometer ( FAO 1989)Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 6 Historically, the decreased demand for mercur y-containing manometers may partially be attributed to programs that have encouraged the replacement of these instruments. Furthermore, several states, including Califor nia, New York and Massachuse tts have banned the sale of several types of (and in some cases, all) merc ury-containing manometers . Table 4 summarizes state regulation data gathered from queries within each individual States’ Department of Environmental Protection (or the equivalent) websites.

Table 4: Manometer Regulati on Information, by State

State Application Regulation Date Effective

CA All mercury-containing manometers except those required by federal law or when the mercury added product is a button cell battery May not be offered for final sale, or distributed 7/1/2006

LA Dairy and natural gas manometers May not be offered for final sale, used or distributed 7/1/2007

ME All mercury-containing manometers except those required by federal law or if the mercury is a button cell battery May not be sold 7/1/2006

MA All mercury-containing manometers except those required by federal law or are medically necessary or ordered by prescription May not be sold, offered for sale, or distributed 5/1/2008

NY All mercury-containing manometers except if the manometer is in a product to replace a product that is a component in a larger product May not be sold, offered for sale, or distributed 1/1/2007

VT All mercury-containing manometers except dairy manometers when used for calibration of equipment May not be sold, offered for sale, or distributed 1/1/2007

WA All mercury containing manometers exceptthose sold or distributed to a hospital or healthcare facility and those used for the calibration o f other equipment. May not be sold 1/1/2006

Sources: IMERC 2006, Legislature of Louisiana 2006, Maine DEP 2007, Vermont Statutes Online.

In preparation for the SNUR, an exhaustive in ternet query was undertaken to determine if any manufacturers still produced mercury-containing natural ga s manometers. Furthermore, a review of the 27 mercury-contai ning manometers liste d in the EPA Mercur y-Added Products and

Alternatives database was undert aken to determine if any were specifically advertised or described as intended for use in pipeline monitoring. Lastly, known historical mercurycontaining manometer manu facturers, natural gas pipeline manu facturers, and service companies

were contacted. 3 All of the contacted comp anies reported that they no longer manufactured, sold, or imported mercury-containing manometers used for pipeline applicatio ns. While none were able to make broader claims regarding the enti re industry, they stated that the industry was ‘going digital’ (i.e. mercury-free) . Moreover, most of the merc ury-containing manometers in the EPA database appear to be for la boratory or medical use, and those that appear to be intended for industrial use generally are smaller, handheld, or portable devices and wo uld not be suitable for pipelines.

3 The following manometer-related companies were cont acted: Reynolds Equipment Manufacturing, Weatherford International Ltd., Baker Hughes Inco rporated, Meriam Process Technologi es, and Princo Instruments, Inc.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 7 IMERC provides information indicating that there may be a market for mercurycontaining replacement parts for manometers. On e of the manufacturers listed in the IMERC database, Meriam Instruments, reported that (as of 2004) it sold both mercury-containing replacement tubes for manometers, and liqui d mercury for use as an indicating fluid.

Conversations with Meriam Inst ruments technical support staff revealed that the sale of elemental mercury ended in 2007. However, it is unclear where the mercury-containing replacement tubes end up. Thus, it is difficult to determine the extent of the replacement part/mercury fluid market. A sear ch for manufacturers/distributors of these parts did not find any additional companies, suggesting that th e market, if existent, is very thin.

1.1.3 Pyrometers

Pyrometers are essentially thermometers that can measure extremely high temperatures. They are found in use today in industrial foundry processes, pottery and ceramic kiln work, and some automotive applications. Historically, pyrome ters contained mercury in their sensing units. Environment Canada’s 2004 report entitled “Sources of Mercury: Mercury-containing Products” indicates that mercury-containing pyrometers typically contain between 5 to 10 grams of mercury (Environment Canada 2004). In recent y ears, however, many states have banned the sale of mercury-containing pyrometers, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. Furthermore, three mercury-free alte rnatives were identified: optical pyrometers, infrared pyrometers, and digital/analog pyrometer s. Figure 3 shows a typical analog pyrometer.

In preparation for the proposed SNUR, an e xhaustive Internet search was conducted of both foreign and domestic instrument manufacturer s as well as of major auction houses for mercury-containing pyrometers; IMERC was al so searched. These online queries were supplemented by phone conversations with severa l manufacturers of instrumentation equipment for high temperature applications. 4 Again, in all cases, none of the contacted companies made, sold, imported, or knew of any other companies th at made, sold, or imported mercury-containing

4 The following manufacturers of instrumentation equipment for high temperature applications were contacted: Bartlett Instrument Company, Cress Manufactur ing Company, and Omega Engineering, Inc. Figure 3: Analog Pyrometer (Evenheat Kiln Inc. 2008)Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 8 pyrometers. Also, there were no special uses or exceptions identified, such as pyrometer calibration devices where mercury is still currently used. Based on the availability of newer and more accurate alternatives, it is likely that ther e are few remaining in use; however a definitive count of mercury-containing pyrometers c ould not be determined or estimated.

1.2 Impact of a SNUR

The SNUR discussed in this report specifi es that any manufact ure, importation or processing of mercury for use in flow meters, natural gas manometers, or pyrometers would be considered a new use and require reporting under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA . This requires that a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or pro cess this chemical for these applications must submit a Significant New Use Notification (SNUN). Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process this ch emical. The firm therefore has two options:

3⁄4 Option 1: Submit a SNUN. If the firm intends to manuf acture, import, and/or process elemental mercury for these purposes, it mu st submit a SNUN. A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a Significant New Use, which, in this case, means any manufacture, importing, and/or processing of this chemical for flow meters, natural gas manometers, or pyrometers. The SNUN must be provided to EPA at least 90 da ys before the firm plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the substance; it provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity

before it occurs. If EPA allows the ma nufacture, importation, a nd/or processing of elemental mercury for any of these three produ cts, then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (inc luding a user fee) plus the possible costs of following Option 2 during EPA review of the SNUN.

3⁄4 Option 2: Decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process, the chemical. The firm may decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, and/or process elemental mercury for flow meters, natural gas manometers, or pyrometers. While th is option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it entails the ‘hidden’ cost of the profit th at will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of me rcury in the producti on of another product and must substitute to a more costly substa nce, it will incur thos e additional ‘hidden’ costs of production. If the firm elects to produce for research and development (R&D) purposes only (exemption is covered in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 9 Table 5 summarizes the costs as sociated with each option.

Table 5: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR

Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical ($2007) 2

1. Submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN). Costs of submitting a SNUN, including testing costs, associated recordke eping, and user fee. $8,222 submission cost (including $2,500 fee) plus any testing costs. 3

2. Decide not to manufacture, import, or process, the

chemical. Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commerci al activity originally planned, and recordkeeping costs only if manufacturing for research and development. Costs not quantified.

1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submis sion of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical.

2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in B-1 and Appendix B.

3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Because mercury-containing flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers are an older, establishe d technology, EPA assumes that a firm will submit only preexisting test data. Thus, it is assumed that no tes ting costs would occur as a result of this SNUR.

The remainder of this report estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with the SNUR being promulgated for these uses of mercur y. Section 2 presents estimates of the costs incurred by manufacturers, importers, and/or processors under the SNUR options. Section 3 addresses one-time export notifica tion costs. Section 4 addresses costs to EPA of administering the SNUR, while Section 5 presents an analysis of other impacts, as requ ired by various statutes and executive orders. The appendices provide cost estimation details.

2.0 COSTS OF A SIGNIFICANT NEW USE RULE (SNUR), BY OPTION

A SNUR specifies requirements a firm must meet if it chooses to manufacture, import, and/or process a PMN chemical. A firm ma y choose to follow only one of the options previously described: submit a SN UN, or decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process, the chemical. These options are described below. Appendix A provides the wa ge rates and inflators used in this analysis.

2.1 Submit SNUN (Option 1)

Under 40 CFR §721.5, manufacturers, importers , and/or processors who would like to undertake a Significant New Use of a PMN substance listed in a S NUR are required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) at least 90 days before the firm plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the substance. For example, they could submit a SNUN if they wish to produce above the volume limit listed in the SNUR for a given chemical, because any production beyond that volume woul d be defined as a Significant New Use.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 10 Because the SNUR discussed in this report spec ifies that any manufacture, importation, and/or processing of elemental mercury for the three pres cribed products constitutes a Significant New Use, a firm wishing to manufacture, import, a nd/or process any volume of elemental mercury for these products would have to submit a SNUN.

The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. Th e notice form used to submit a SNUN is the same as that for a PMN, and th e costs of submitting a S NUN are estimated based

on the costs incurred to submit a PMN.

This option could have the following costs:

• Costs of preparing the SNUN and of the $2,500 user fee.

• Costs of avoiding production wh ile the SNUN is being processe d; costs of recordkeeping and of complying with a ny restrictions resulti ng from the SNUN review.

• EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its pos session and/or describe any other available data. Because mercury-containing flow mete rs, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers are an older, established technology, EPA assumes that a firm will submit only preexisting test data. Thus, it is assumed that no testing costs would occur as a result of this

SNUR.

Advance Compliance Exemption

Another option available to firms before the SNUR is promulgated is to seek an advance compliance exemption under 40 CFR §721.45(h). The submission cost for this option is the same as that for a SNUN, but by negotiating an advance compliance agreement with EPA a firm can diminish the loss of profits due to delay. This option is not available after the SNUR is promulgated.

2.1.1 Costs for Submitting a SNUN

The costs for submitting a SNUN are estimated to be equivalent to the costs of completing a PMN submission. In addition, as was mentioned above, there could be testing costs, delay costs, or other co sts not included here. Table 6 shows the costs of preparing a SNUN; details are presented in Appendix B.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 11 Table 6: Cost of Requirement to Submit a SNUN ($2007) 1

Cost Element Cost ($2007)

Costs of preparing submission (110 labor hours) $5,722

User fees $2,500 2

TOTAL $8,222

Notes:

1 Figures are rounded to whole dollars (see Appendix B for derivation).

2 Small businesses with annual sales of less than $40 million when combined with those of the parent company (if any) are subject to a reduced user fee of $100.

2.2 Decide Not to Produce Chemical (Option 2)

Some firms may find that the costs of preparing a SNUN are financially unattractive. In this case, the firm could choose not to manufactur e, import, and/or process the PMN substance.

While this option avoids the costs of meeting the specifications in the SNUR or submitting a request for some alternative, it entails the "hidden" cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the comme rcial activity originally planned. For example, if the firm does not produce the PMN substance, then it will forego the profit it would have achieved by producing it. That fo regone profit is a potential "hidden" cost of Option 2. Similarly, if the firm would have used the PM N substance in the production of another product and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur those additio nal costs of production. If the firm elects to produce for R&D purposes only, it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping attributable to the SNUR.

2.3 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

As of 2008, EPA has not identified any current manufacturer, importer, and/or processor,

and therefore believes that there is no current import or domestic manufacture or processing of elemental mercury for use in flow meters, natu ral gas manometers, or pyrometers. For this reason, EPA thinks that submission of a SNUN for these elemental mercury uses is unlikely due to the history of the chemical

.

2.4 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions

The Agency recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from this SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an inte nded new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity befo re it occurs to prevent unreas onable risk of injury to human

health or the environment. It is not known wh at specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are ne cessary after reviewi ng a SNUN. Any such actions are highlyEconomic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 12 dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed).

Should the Agency’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedur es for taking those actions. Included in those procedures would be an assessment of th e costs and benefits of those actions.

3.0 EXPORT NOTIFICATION COSTS

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical identified in a SNUR (40 CFR §707.60 through 75). After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70).

On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export no tification requirement from an annual to a one-time requirement per each destination country for each e xporter of a chemical substance subject to TSCA sections 5(a)(2), 5(b), 5( e)(1), and 5(e)(2) (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234). 5
Notifications must include the exporter's name and address, the chemical name, the date(s) of export or intended export, the importing country (or countries), and the section of TSCA under

which EPA has taken action.

However, as noted in 40 CFR 707.60(b), the exemption from notification requirements for exported articles remains in force. Thus, persons who export elemental me rcury as part of an article are not required to pr ovide export notice (although they remain subject to any other applicable requirements of TSCA section 12(b)). Furthermore, elemental mercury is already subject to Section 12 (b) of TSCA under th e 2007 SNUR for certain automotive switches. Therefore, there are no expected export notific ation costs associated with this SNUR.

4.0 AGENCY COSTS

EPA’s costs to review and pr ocess industry submissions such as SNUNs are assumed to

be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. These costs are estimated at $5,668 per case. The required Agency steps, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff needs, and extramural costs such as for contractor support are derived in Appendix F from EPA's analys is of the Agency costs of processing PMN submissions (RIB, 1994), with adju stments to reflect inflation and changes in Agency staff levels. The original EPA analysis us ed a range of salaries, but this analysis uses one typical salary.

The PMN costs reflect estimates made in 1994, in Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (RIB, 1994). The average cost to review a SNUN may be different from that estimated for PMNs, both because of differences between PMNs and SNUNs, and b ecause the PMN review hours may have changed

5 Under the previous rule, exporters were required to submit a notice the first time in the calendar year they exported a particular chemical to a particular country.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 13 since 1994. Resources were not av ailable to re-estimate costs fo r SNUNs. See Appendix C for

details.

5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive orders.

5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Ac t (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq .), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requi res regulators to consider the impact of regulations on small entities, in particular small busin esses. EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs cove ring over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a handful of notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted, none appear to be from small entities in response to any SNUR . In fact, EPA expects to receive few, if any, SNUNs from either large or small entities in response to any SNUR.

This leaves open the ques tion of how many small busine sses are affected but do not submit SNUNs. For example, businesses may change their behavior in order to use a chemical in a manner that avoids triggering Significant New Use notification requirements, and make no

submission to EPA.

Data and resources were not available to estimate the number of small businesses affected by the current rule. However, a 1989 analysis suggested that few small businesses would be affected by SNURs for chemicals th at have undergone PMN review. The 1989 report estimated that 9% of firms subject to SNURs w ould be small businesses, based on the portion of PMN submitters who were small businesses (RIB, 1989). The threshold to be considered a “small business” was $40 million in sales, which is consistent with the definition used at 40 CFR
§700.43 to set PMN fees.

Past bona fide submissions also suggest that few firms other than possibly some PMN

submitters will be affected. 6 EPA has received few bona fides indicating interest in manufacturing or importing chemical s subject to past SNURs. EP A also has received few public comments during rulemaking on SNURs covering PMN chemicals. For example, a SNUR published in the spring of 2003 covering 62 chem icals resulted in industry comments on only three PMNs, none from small businesses (EPA Docket No. OPPT-2002-0060; EPA, 2003).

It remains possible that some small busine sses are affected by SNURs without EPA being aware, for example if the firms have made no subm issions or comments to EPA. However, even if a small business were interested in supplying a SNUR chemical, the SNUR's impact on profits is generally expected to be minor. For example, the firm may have a small expense of keeping records and/or of changing wor kplace practices to comply with restrictions. If modifying production practices would be overly costly, or if the firm wishes to engage in a Significant New

6 Bona fides are submitted to EPA by manufacturers and impo rters to determine a chem ical's TSCA Chemical Inventory and regulatory status.Economic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 14 Use but believes that expensive testing is needed to support a submission to EPA, it may instead forego production, thus sacrifici ng profits. The amounts of lost profits, if any, were not quantified for this report, but usually should be low. This is because SNUR chemicals are relatively new and few compared to the many th ousands of chemicals on the TSCA Inventory, and so are unlikely to be central to a firm’s business.

Based on these considerations and on the li mited data available, EPA expects that any compliance with a SNUR will not have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

EPA has determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or ot herwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Un funded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 USC 3501 et seq. , an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a pers on is not required to respond, to a collection of information that requires Office of Management and Budge t (OMB) approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements related to this action ha ve already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any additional burden requiring OMB approval.

5.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This action does not involve any technical st andards, therefore section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancem ent Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

5.5 Executive Order 12630: Government al Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights , by examining the takings implications of this rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Ta kings” issued under the Executive order.

5.6 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review , requires OMB review for rules with an impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or with any other potential significantEconomic Analysis of SNUR U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers 15 impact. OMB has previously determined that these types of SNURs are not a “significant regulatory action” that w ould require OMB review under this Executive Order.

5.7 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

This action does not involve sp ecial considerations of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

5.8 Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the neces sary steps to eliminat e drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provid e a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

.

5.9 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from En vironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect childre n. This type of analysis is required for rules that will have an impact of $100 million or more only. The impact of this SNUR will be less than $100 millio n and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required.

5.10 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “m eaningful and timely i nput by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have fe deralism implications.” This

action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relations hip between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Execu tive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

5.11 Executive Order 13175: Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 is Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). This rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substa ntial direct effects on Indian Tribes.

5.12 Executive Order 13211: Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.APPENDIX A

INFLATORS AND WAGE RATESEconomic Analysis of SNUR A-1 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers APPENDIX A INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. The costs shown here were initially calculated fo r the Economic Analysis of the SNUR for Chloranil for year-end 2005; for this analysis, they have been inflated to year-end 2007 values.

A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits a nd overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost. The basic method is described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002). The resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table A- 1. Costs are calculated for seve ral labor categories: Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical , Production Workers, Industrial Hygienists, and EPA staff.

In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industria l Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS). The following table shows the crosswal k between old and new occupational titles.

Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2 . ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006a); and Weinstein, 2004.

A.1.1 Derivation of Labor Rates for Manag erial, Professional/T echnical, Clerical,

and Production Labor

Wages and fringe benefits fo r managerial, professional/tec hnical, clerical and production

labor were taken from the Bur eau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 7 for December, for manufacturing industries. 8

7 This is a change from the method used in a 2003 report, Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules For 65

Chemical Substances (EPAB, 2003; EPA docket number OPPT-2002-0078). Previously, wage rates for production workers

came from the BLS National Employment, Hours, and Earnings, A verage Hourly Earnings of Production Workers , while fringe

benefits were taken from the EC EC data. Here, both wages and fringes for produ ction workers come from ECEC data, for better consistency with the method of estimating labor costs for other labor categories.

8 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Private Manufacturing I ndustry by Occupation, unpublished BLS data (BLS, 2006a). Past SNUR economic analyses , such as EPAB, 2003, used ECEC da ta for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction). However, the manufactu ring sector data seems more re levant since the SNUR mainly affects the chemicals industry. EPAB Reports Labor Category BLS Ol d Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC)

Managerial Executive, administrative, and managerial Management, business, and

financial Professional/Technical Professional specialty and technical Professional and related

Clerical Administrative support, including

clerical Office and administrative supportEconomic Analysis of SNUR A-2 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category. For example, for December 2005, the average wage rate for professional/technical 9 labor was $31.02; the averag e fringe benefit was $16.73. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $16.73/$31.02, or approximately 53.9 percent.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with O ffice of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analys es of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPAB, 2002). This overhead loadi ng factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to de rive the fully loaded wage. For example, the December 2005 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $31.02 × (1+0.539329 + 0.17) = $53.02.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Table 5: Compensation: Em ployment Cost Index for Total Compensation, for Private Industry Wo rkers, by Occupational Group and Industry was used to inflate the fully loaded wage rates from December 2005 values to December 2007 values.

While all the inflators were chosen from the manu facturing sector, different values were used to

inflate the costs based on the nature of the occupation. For example, managerial costs were inflated using the “management, professional, and related” index, while production labor used the “production, transportation, a nd material moving” index. A mo re detailed explanation can be

found in the notes to Table A-1.

Fully loaded December 2007 costs for manage rial, clerical, and production labor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in Table A-1.

A.1.2 Derivation of Labor Rates for Industrial Hygienists

For industrial hygienists, wages were based on another BLS data series, Occupational Employment Statistics [OES], National Indus try-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage

Estimates. OES data were used because ECEC data were not available for very specific occupations. However, the OES data covers only wages, not fringe benefits. Therefore, the Industrial Hygienist fringe benefits continue to be based on ECEC data. 10

The wage rate for Industrial Hygienists is a weighted average of the hourly mean wage

for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists , Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 29- 9011, and Occupational Health and Safety Technicians , SOC 29-9012, in Manufacturing. The wage rate for each occupation was weighted by employment for the occupation. The North

9 Past SNUR economic analyses have used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categor ies. In 2004, BLS changed from the Occupa tional Classification System, OCS, to the Standard Occupational Classification system, SOC. In the process, the “Professional specialty and technical” category became the “Professional and related” category. However, the coverage of the old and ne w occupational groups is approximately the same. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Indus try and Occupation ECEC Series ( Weinstein, 2004).

10 This represents a change in data s ources for Industrial Hygienist wages as compared to the prior PMN SNUR economic analysis, which used data from a 1997 professi onal journal salary survey (EPAB, 2003).Economic Analysis of SNUR A-3 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers American Industry Classificati on System (NAICS) codes for Manufacturing are 31, 32, and 33 (BLS, 2005). The calculations are shown in Table A-2.

As with other labor categor ies, the fringe benefits factor came from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation : Private Manufacturing Industry by Occupation (BLS, 2006c). Benefits for “professional specialty and technical” occupations were used, and loaded wages were calculated as for othe r types of labor. An additional loading factor of 17 percent of wages was applied for overhead. Costs were infl ated to 2007 values using the “management, professional, and related” values in the same manner as discussed in th e section describing the

derivation of labor rates for mana gerial, professional/technical, clerical and production labor.

Calculations are shown in Table A-1.

A.1.3 Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff

Agency labor costs are calculated based on a nnual Federal salaries for the WashingtonBaltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2008 (OPM, 2008). The average salary for one Full Time Equivale nt (FTE) staff is estimated as the salary for a GS-13 Step 5 employee

. 11

Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loadin g factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $150,440.

The Agency loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA

Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff. For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting ICR No. 1139.06, with the following explanation:

“The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplicat ion factor used is recommended in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA intern al phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only be nefits but also overhead.” (ICR No.1139.06)

11 The GS-13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.12 (12/22/20 04) which covers PMN SNURs. This grade level represents a change from the earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPAB, 2003), which used an av erage of GS-12 Step 1 and GS-12 Step 10 salaries. The change is based on the judgment of EPA staff familiar with the SNUN process that a GS-13 (or higher) grade level is more typical for PMN and SNUN reviewers (Carol Rawie conve rsation with Karen Chu, EPA OPPT/Chemical Control Division, 5/1/06).Economic Analysis of SNURA-4U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branchfor Mercury-Containing Flow Meters,Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines,and PyrometersTable A-1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates1WageFringeBenefitFringes as% wage*Over-head %wage2Fringe +overheadfactor*LoadedWages*InflationFactor3LoadedWage (2007)EPAB LaborCategoryData Sources(a) (b) (c)=(b)/(a) (d)(e)=(c)+(d)+1(f)=(a)×(e) (g)(h)=(f)×(g/100)ManagerialBLSECEC, PrivateManufacturingindustries,“Mgt, Business, and Financial”4$38.22 $18.89 49.42% 17% 1.66 $63.61 103.5 $65.84Professional/TechnicalBLSECEC, PrivateManufacturingindustries, “Professional and related“4$31.02 $16.73 53.93% 17% 1.71 $53.02 103.5 $54.88ClericalBLSECEC, PrivateManufacturingindustries,“Office and AdministrativeSupport”4$15.73 $7.97 50.67% 17% 1.68 $26.37 104.3 $27.50ProductionWorkerBLSECEC, PrivateManufacturingindustries, “Production.”4$15.34 $8.93 58.21% 17% 1.75 $26.88 103.8 $27.90Wage: BLS OES Occupat. Employ. andWages,forManufacturing(NAICS 31,32, 33), average of wages forOccup.Health/ Safety Specialists(SOC 29-9011)andOccup. Health/Safety Technicians(SOC 29-9012), weighted by employment.5$26.10 103.5 $27.01IndustrialHygienistFringes: BLSECEC, PrivateManufacturing industries, “Professionaland related”4-- -- 53.93% 17% 1.71 $44.61 103.5 $46.17EPA staffFTEAnnual Federal staff cost: OPMWashington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia,DC-MD-PA-VA-WV, area, GS-13 Step 5pay rates, with 60% overhead.6$94,025(annual)--[Includedin 60%overhead]60% 1.6$150,440(annual)$150,440(annual)Notes:1Wage data are rounded to the closest dollar figure in this table;however, in calculations using these numbers for this report,unrounded values were used.2An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions inWage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program(Rice, 2002), and theRevised Economic Analysis forthe Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report(EPAB, 2002).3The inflation indexes come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics'Employment Cost Index for total compensation, for private industry workers, by occupational group and industry(available at:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm). The index used to inflate "Managerial", "Professional", and "Industrial Hygienist" is the Manufacturing "management, professional and related"value; for "Clerical" staff the inflator isthe Manufacturing "Sales and office" value; for "Production Workers" the inflator is the "Production, transportation, and material moving" value.4UnpublishedEmployer Costs for Employee Compensation: PrivateManufacturing Industry byOccupation, December 2005.Data received by Carol Rawie, US EPA, from Raphael Branch,US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 10, 2006 (BLS, 2006c). Thedata is not seasonallyadjusted (email from Raphael Branch to Carol Rawie, November 17, 2005).5Employment and unweighted wages are from BLSOccupational EmploymentStatistics (National Industry-Specific Employment and Wage Estimates), May 2005.6The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 5 ($94,025) for 2008, fromthe Office of PersonnelManagement salary table for Washington-Baltimore Northern Virginia. The 60%fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructionsfor Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992,page 30, footnote 9).Economic Analysis of SNUR A-5 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers Table A-2 Weighted Average Wages for Industrial Hygienists – Manufacturi ng (NAICS 31, 32, 33) 1

Occupation Title (SOC code) Employment

(a) Mean hourly wage

(b) Weight

(c) Weighted Wage ($2005) (d)=(c) x (b)
Occupational Health & Safety Specialists (29-9011) 5,630 $27.27 0.811 $22.12
Occupational Health & Safety Technicians (29-9012) 1,310 $21.08 0.189 $3.98

Industrial Hygienist (wei ghted average) 6,940 -- 1 $26.10

Notes:

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest dollar figure in this table; however, in calculations usi ng these numbers for this report, unrounded

values were used.

Source: Employment and unweighted wages are from BLS Occupational Employment Statisti cs (Occupational Employment and Wages) , for May 2005 (BLS, 2005).

A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Costs of equipment and supplies were inflat ed to year 2007 dollars using the Consumer Price Index -- All Urban Consumers; wages were inflated using the appropriate Employment Cost Index (ECI). Where both labor and equipmen t/supplies were involved, we used the inflation factor corresponding to the dominant cost category. For example, test co sts include a mix of labor, equipment, and supplies. Assuming that th e largest component of test costs comes from labor, we used the ECI for privat e industry, all workers. Comple te information on the derivation

of the inflation factors used is given in Table A-3 below.Economic Analysis of SNUR A-6 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers Table A-3 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation index source Starting

year Index for starting year (a) Index for

Dec. 2007 (b) Inflation

factor (b)/(a) 3

Chemical testing (toxicity, ecological effects etc.) BLS ECI, not SA, total comp, private industry, All Workers

. ECS10002I, 4 th Q [BLS, 2008a] varies varies (b) varies

White collar/other labor mix; equipment; supplies. Example for test costed in 1993 1993 66.5 106.3 varies

Tests were first costed out in various years, depending on the test; inflation factors vary depending original cost date. Example for test costed in 2000 2000 83.8 106.3 1.598

Impermeability testing of gloves and other gear 1 BLS ECI, not SA, total comp, private industry, All Workers

. ECS10002I, 4 th Q [BLS, 2008a] 1997 74.9 106.3 1.268

Export notification BLS ECI, not SA, Total comp, Private industry, White Collar

. ECS11102I, 4 th Q [BLS, 2008a] 1992 63.2 106.8 1.690

Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, not SA, Total comp, Private industry, White Collar

. ECS11102I, 4 th Q [BLS, 2008a] 1993 65.5 106.8 1.631

Labels, placards, gloves, eyewear, clothing, respirators

File cabinet BLS CPI, inflation calculator, not SA. Annual [BLS, 2008b] 1997 160.5 207.3 1.292

Photocopies

Record keeping materials BLS CPI, inflation calculator, Annual [BLS, 2008b] 1988 118.3 207.3 1.752

Key: BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Employment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salarie s and benefits). 4th Q = Fourth Quarter. “ECS10002I” etc. refer to BLS series I ds.

Notes:

1 The index selected represents a change from a prior PMN SNUR ec onomic analysis (EPAB, 2003). Th e prior report used a series (ECS11102I) for private industry White Collar workers; this repor t uses the series (ECS10002I) for all private industry workers . The change better reflects the mix of labor likely to be involved in impermeability testing.

2 In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employ ment Cost Index (ECI) series “wer e rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the index factors in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employme nt Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b). The SIC-based series (as opposed to NAICS-based) are used here because they contain historical data. The CPI was not rebased.

3 While indexes for the starting year and 2007 are rounded to one deci mal place in this table, unrou nded indexes were used to cal culate

the inflation factor.APPENDIX B

COSTS FOR SNUNEconomic Analysis of SNUR B-1 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers APPENDIX B COSTS FOR SNUN

Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a PMN submissi on, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both. EPA's 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for amendments to the PMN regulations relied on indust ry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submi ssion, prepare the form, and submit the form and data to EPA (RIB, 1994). These estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, 1991), which became the American Chemistry Council.

In the 1994 EPA report, the average effort required to prepare and submit a PMN was 95 to 114 hours. This included recordkeeping for the submission, but the recordkeeping cost was not broken out. For this analysis, the costs of a preparing a SNUN were derived using the averages of the hours for each type of labor from the 1994 report. The method of calculating hourly loaded labor costs is described in Appendix A. In addition to preparing and submitting a SNUN, manufacturers must main tain records on the submission for five years. Thus, this analysis includes a recordkeepi ng burden assumed to be 5% of the preparation and submission burden (5.3 hours); this is assumed to be performe d with clerical labor. Thus, the total time burden for SNUN preparation, submission, and reco rdkeeping is estimated to be between 100

and 119 hours.

Table B-1 details the cost of submitting a SNUN, including the $2,500 EPA notification

user fee.

Table B-1. Industry Costs for SNUN

Labor Category Hours Range 1 Average

Hours Loaded Wage

Rate 2 ($2007) SNUN (Option 1)

Clerical 17.3 – 19.3 18.3 $27.50 $503

Technical 67 - 80 73.5 $54.88 $4,034

Managerial 16 - 20 18 $65.84 $1,185

Subtotal 100.3 – 119.3 109.8 $5,722

User fee (SNUN only) $2,500

TOTAL $8,222

Notes:

1 Hours range for each labor category are fr om the PMN Amendments RIA (RIB, 1994)

2 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendix A for derivation. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded valu es; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of

rounded values.APPENDIX C

AGENCY COSTSEconomic Analysis of SNUR C-1 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers APPENDIX C AGENCY COSTS

EPA submission review costs are presented in Table C-1. Costs to review and process

SNUNs are assumed to be similar to EPA costs to review PMNs. 12

The list of review steps, estimates of staff-y ear full-time equivalents (FTEs), and estimates of

extramural costs are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (RIB, 1994). The percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are from RIB,

1994.

The GS levels used for Agency staff reflect the judgment of Agency staff familiar with the PMN/SNUN review process. The salary of a Full Time Equivalent EPA sta ff was calculated using GS-13 Step 5 salary data (OPM, 2008). The original PMN cost estimates were for GS-12 and were presented as low and high estimates, based on the most junior (Step 1) and th e most senior (Step 10) GS-12 pay rates, respectively. However, this an alysis uses the higher GS-13 staff level and, for simplicity, a single intermediate pay rate (Step 5) within that GS le vel. A loading factor of 1.6 was applied to the salary to reflect fringe benefits and overhead (O PPE, 1992). The loaded salary

calculations are descri bed in Appendix A.

For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded average sa lary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step.

The Extramural Cost column shows costs for co ntractor support and ot her outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step, inflated from 1993 prices, as explained in Appendix

A

.

The Percent of Cases is a weigh ting factor applied to reflect th e fact that not all chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemical s require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may ha ve weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Change s in weighting factors c ould cause actual review costs to be higher or lower than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be “invalid” -- i.e. not required in the first place. However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hour s to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this anal ysis, the review steps and weighting factors are

assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs.

12 For an overview of the PMN review process, see the Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters, EPA, 1997.Economic Analysis of SNUR C-2 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the Unweighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. This calculation yields total Agency costs for submission review and processing shown in Table C-1.

Table C-1 Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extramural Cost 2

FTE

fraction Cost per

FTE 1 FTE Total ($2007) 1993

dollars 2007

dollars Unweighted

Cost Pct. of

Cases Weighted

Cost Review Steps

(1) (2) (3)=(1)*(2) (4) (5) (6)=(3)+(5) (7) (8)=(6)*(7)

Prenotice consultation 0.0024 $150,440 $361 $4 $7 $368 41% $151 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $150,440 $361 $92 $150 $511 100% $511
CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $150,440 $376 $268 $437 $813 100% $813 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $150,440 $90 $14 $23 $113 100% $113 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $150,440 $226 $56 $91 $317 100% $317
Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $150,440 $120 $0 $0 $120 100% $120

Focus 0.0009 $150,440 $135 $23 $38 $173 100% $173

Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $150,440 $3,295 $511 $833 $4,128 29% $1,197 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $150,440 $1,941 $113 $184 $2,125 15% $319 Order Development/ Negotiation Review 0.0171 $150,440 $2,573 $22 $36 $2,608 3% $78

Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $150,440 $13,329 $0 $0 $13,329 3% $400

Order Modification 0.2167 $150,440 $32,600 $0 $0 $32,600 3% $978

New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $150,440 $4,167 $85 $139 $4,306 7% $301

Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $150,440 $181 $40 $65 $246 31% $76
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $150,440 $5,010 $287 $468 $5,478 1% $55
CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $150,440 $60 $3 $5 $65 100% $65

TOTAL $5,668

Notes:

1 GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Appendix B derivation.

2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purcha ses directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices as described in Appendix A.

3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded

values shown in this table.

Sources: FTEs per review step and 1993 extramural costs are from RIB, 1994. Percents of cases are from RIB, 1994. GS-13 salaries are from OPM, 2008.APPENDIX D

REFERENCESEconomic Analysis of SNUR D-1 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers APPENDIX D REFERENCES

15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, Section 12(d).

40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 707, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 720, Premanufacture Notification , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 720, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical Substances , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

53 FR 8859, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, Federal Register, Volume 53, March 15, 1988.

59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmen tal Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations , Federal Register, Volume 59, February 16, 1994.

59 FR 22951, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments , Federal Register, Volume 59, November 6, 2000.

61 FR 4729, Civil Justice Reform February 7, 1996.

62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register , Volume 62, April 23, 1997.

65 FR 43255, Federalism , Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999.

66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use , Federal Register, Volume 66, May 22, 2001.

71 FR 66234. Export Notification; Change to Re porting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register

, Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Availa ble from the Federal Docket Management System as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Beall, M. D. (1979). “Operation and Maintenanc e of Single Bellows Me ters.” International School of Hydrocarbon Measuremen t Publications. Available at: http://www.ceesi.com/docs_tech lib/events/ishm1979/Docs/20.pdf

BLS, 2005. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics [OES]. May 2005 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Sectors 31, 32, and 33 – Manufacturing. http://www.bls.gov/OES/cu rrent/naics2_31-33.htm

.Economic Analysis of SNUR D-2 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS. Downloaded February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm

.

BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov

.

BLS, 2006c. Unpublished Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Private Manufacturing Industry by Occupation, December 2005. Data received May 10, 2006, by Carol Rawie, US EPA, from Raphael Branch, US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2006). The data is not seasonally adjusted (email from Raphael Branch to Carol Rawie, November 17, 2005)

BLS, 2008a. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 5. Compensation (Not Seasonally Adjusted): Employment Cost Index for total compen sation, for private industry workers, by occupational group and industry. (April 30, 2008) at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm.

BLS, 2008b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index- Inflation Calculator, data inflated to 2007 values, extracted May 1, 2008.

CMA, 1991. Chemical Ma nufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden

Associated with PMN Submissions . Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

Crabtree, Giles M. (1979). “Bellows-Type Orif ice Meter.” Internationa l School of Hydrocarbon

Measurement Publications. Available at: http://www.ceesi.com/docs_tech lib/events/ishm1979/Docs/18.pdf

Environment Canada. 2004. “Sources of Mercury: Mercury-containing Pro ducts.” Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-mcp.cfm?SELECT=SM

EPA, 1997. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters , EPA 744-R-97-003, March 1997. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/

EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics . Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances, 68 FR 15061, March 28, 2003. EPA Docket No. OPPT2002-0060.Economic Analysis of SNUR D-3 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers EPA, 2006. U.S. EPA, Analytical Support Branch, Environmental Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information. Economic Analysis of the Toxics Releases Inventory Burden Reduction Rule , September 2006.

EPAB, 2002. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for th e Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC. August 2002.

EPAB, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65

Chemical Substances . Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPPT S-2002-0078 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

EPAB, 2005b. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements , November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPPT- 2005-0058-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Evenheat Kiln Inc. 2008. Image av ailable at: http://www.evenheatkiln.com/accessories/pyro/pyro.htm.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the Un ited Nations. 1989. “Milk Production Hygiene and Udder Health.” Available at: http ://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0218E/T0218E02.htm

Galligan, Catherine; Morose, Gregory; and Jim Giordani. 2003. “An Investigation of Alternatives to Mercury-C ontaining Products.” Lowell Cent er for Sustainable Production.

Available at: http://www.sustainableproduction.org/dow nloads/An%20Investigation%20Hg.pdf

ICR No. 118.08. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwor k Reduction Act, October 11, 2005.

ICR No. 1139.06. [Information Collection Request fo r] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Re view under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000.

Interstate Mercury Education and Reducti on Clearinghouse (IMERC). 2006. “State MercuryAdded Product Ban Guidance.” Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/ mercury/imerc/productban.cfm

Legislature of Louisiana. 2006. “Act No. 126.” Available at: http://www.legis.state.la.us/bi lldata/streamdocument.asp?did=399136Economic Analysis of SNUR D-4 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers Lenntech. “Chemical Properties of Mercury.” Av ailable at: http://www.lenntech.com/Periodicchart-elements/Hg-en.htm

Leopold, Barry R. 2002. “Chapter 3: Manufactur ing Processes Involving Mercury: Use and Release of Mercury in the United States .” National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Resear ch and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.ep a.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02104/600r02104chap3.pdf

Lyons, William C. and Plisga, Gary J. (2005). Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering . Elsevier Press. Preview available:http://books.google.com/books?id=hDRjBCI08QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=% 22handbook+of+natural+gas+engineering%2

2

Maine Department of Environm ental Protection (DEP). 2007. “Exemptions from the Ban on Sale of Mercury Switches, Relays and M easuring Devices.” Available at: http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/rules/final%204-3-07.doc

National Institute of Health’s Specialized Information Se rvices ChemIDplus Lite, http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/chemidlite.jsp.

Omega Engineering Inc. 2008. Image available at: http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=FTB900&Nav=gref02.

OPPE, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) . Washington, DC, June 1, 1992.

OPM

, 2008. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2006-DCB

, Washington-BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV . accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/ 08tables/pdf/DCB.pdf.

Piehler, Chris (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Personal

Communication with Sue Slotnick, U.S. EPA

Reynolds, Paul. (2007). “Fundamentals of Orifice Recorders.” Handout to a lecture given by the American School of Gas Measurement and Technology. Available at: http://help.intellisitesu ite.com/ASGMT%20White%20Papers/papers/009.pdf

RIB, 1989. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic S ubstances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Rules: General Provisi ons for New Chemical FollowUp . Washington, DC, July 19, 1989. (OTS /RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.)Economic Analysis of SNUR D-5 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers RIB, 1994. Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. (O TS/RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.)

Rice, 2002. Cody Rice. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, June 10, 2002.

Schleifstein, Mark. 2007. “Feder al suit seeks mercury cleanup.” The Times-Picayune. May 10, 2007. Available at: http://www.nola.com/ news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news4/117877613668770.xml&coll=1

Silagi, 1992. William Silagi. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule Promulgated under TSCA Section 12(b) . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, June 1992.

United States Department of Justice. 2002. “U nited States Settles Case With Natural Gas Pipeline Company.” Available at: http://demott.usablenet.com/tt/www.usdoj .gov/opa/pr/2002/February/02_enrd_053.htm.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. “NAICS 3315: Foundries.” Available at: http://www.2010census.biz/ epcd/ec97/def/3315.HTM

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. “2002 NAICS Definiti ons: 334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and C ontrolling Industrial Process Variables.” Available at: http://www.censu s.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334513.HTM

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. “2002 NAICS Defi nitions: 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems.” Available at: http://www. census.gov/eos/www/naics/htmls/2/221310.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b. “2002 NAICS Defi nitions: 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and

Related Structures Construction.” Available at: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/htmls/2/237120.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007c. “2002 NAICS Defin itions: 486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil.” Available at: http://www.censu s.gov/eos/www/naics/ htmls/4/486110.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007d. “2002 NAICS Defi nitions: 486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.” Available at: http:// www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/htmls/4/486210.htm

U.S. Census Bureau 2007e. “NAICS 2211: El ectric Power Generation, Transmission and

Distribution.” Availabl e at: http://www.census .gov/epcd/ec97/def/2211.HTMEconomic Analysis of SNUR D-6 U.S. EPA Economic and Policy Analysis Branch for Mercury-Containing Flow Meters, Manometers on Oil and Gas Pipelines, and Pyrometers U.S. Postal Service Website, May 2007, accessed from http://www.usps.com/common/category/postage.htm

.

Vermont Statutes Online. “Restrictions on th e Sale and Use of Certain Mercury-Added

Products.” Available at: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/st atutes/fullsection.cfm?Title= 10&Chapter=164&Section=071

05

Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Ma rk A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics. C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cw c/print/cm20040823ar01p1.htm

.

Personal Communication with John Bacon. Baker Hughes In corporated. March 2008.

Personal Communication with T echnical Support. Bartlett Instrument Company. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Receptionist. Cress Manuf acturing Company. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Sales Represen tative. Lake Monitors, Inc. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Sales Representa tive. Omega Engineering, Inc. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Leo Buckon. Me riam Process Technologies. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Sales Representa tive. Princo Instruments, Inc. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Technical Service Depart ment. Reynolds Equipment Manufacturing. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Sales Representa tive. Utility Supply of America. March 2008.

Personal Communication with Brock Hennige. Weatherford Internat ional Ltd. March 2008.